Why Have Sharia Law In The West?

[MossadConspiracy]

Foxhole said

It is a democracy with a Constitution. If a new 'constituency' wants a new 'paradigm', they'll have to overthrow the Constitution, and I'll be on the other side of that battle line.

you need to stop fantasizing

First of all, arbitration by religious courts already happens in the United States and if local or state governments give some legitimacy to these courts, it would hardly be a blip on the radar for anyone. These things are completely voluntary, and there is no way that they would be anything but voluntary in the United States or UK. Their decisions are never given the legal status of binding court decisions, and there is always the option to take the case to a civil court regardless of the ruling made in this type of court. Get a grip, you're acting as if the discussion is about Red Dawn

Secondly, in order for the US constitution to be amended, a two thirds majority of both houses of congress and a majority in 38 out of the 50 state legislatures must support the proposed amendment. If it is possible for Muslims to ever be so numerous in this country that an amendment could pass based on their votes alone, you will be long dead by the time it happens. This also assumes that all muslims vote as a bloc and so on.

Seriously, get a grip

ws

[Variable]

jinnzaman said

Which countries are you referring to in Western Europe? Up until the industrial revolution, the GDP of most European countries was comparable to regions within the Ottoman Empire, India, China, and Japan.

You seem to be implicating that Western Europe had acquired many technological innovations but fail to state which technological innovations (or any other innovations) and how that influenced the development of their economy. The most economically advanced country was probably Italy, but its performance on global markets was mediocre. It wasn't until armed trading was instituted by the Iberians that the balance began to change.

I wasn't really referring to any European 'countries' per se, because I'm talking about a time when countries as such didn't exist. And I'm pretty sure the region's GDP figures weren't available for that time either.

Anyway that's not the point I'm trying to make, simply that the West was on the rise well before exploitative colonialism contributed significantly to it's progress, and other factors were just as important.

Naval technology definitely contributed. Europeans were the only ones with significant blue water navies with the kind of reach they needed for global trade (and not mostly at the point of a gun by the way, not for a century or two anyway).

In terms of the printing press, my understanding was that it was invented in Germany and while it may have revolutionized European society, there wasn't a real "explosion" of literacy rates. There may have been an explosion in the production and transferal of knowledge, but its a bit of a stretch to argue that the printing press caused huge numbers of people to start reading. Moreover, there is still no causal connection between the invention of the printing press and the economic superiority or technological innovations that you are referring to and if you have some in mind, please list them.

I'm not going to tackle this one, if I start I'll go on forever. The printing press was on par with the invention of the alphabet. The info is out there.


[QUOTE]Did these technological innovations enable Europeans to live longer comparable to non-Europeans? Did it assist them in developing goods that gave enabled them to produce better goods? Did it give them better food and therefore create population explosions? The answers to all of these questions, even if true, simply do not equate with economic growth per se. [QUOTE]

Why wouldn't those things contribute to economic growth?

Its also debateable whether European ships were superior to Ottoman or Chinese vessels, and whether they were even European in origin.

By 1571 European ships (although not the ones I was talking about) were definitely superior to the Ottomans'.

Again, the basic assertion you are making is that European states engaged in technological innovations that gave them marked advantages in global commerce and thats not true. The technological innovations gave them superior military technology which was used to acquire resources and thats what gave them the edge on the global market.

There are problems with the causation in your argument. I'm also not denying that there were other factors, but all things being equal, exploitation was the driving force of the "lift off." I would also argue that exploitation is still the driving force today.

There's as much wrong with the causation in your argument as there is with mine. All you're saying is that European powers had a policy to hold people at the point of a gun and take their resources. You don't mention that European colonialism was more an exception rather than a rule in its global commercial interests for centuries. You ignore the changing agricultural practices that allowed Europe's population to grow as it did. The stable nature of the governments. The changing societal view on wealth and competitiveness. You don't mention how exploitation of South American resources actually worked to harm Spain's economy in the long run. All you've said is that ''Europe's success is mostly due to it's military policies''. So if my argument is flawed based on causation, your's isn't any further ahead.

[Zeinab]

Just wondering, but what would happen to things like literature, theatre, music, TV, film, the Internet etc. in a state implementing Shariah (regardless of whether it's in the 'West' or not)?
What sorts of ethics etc, would be applied to science, technology and so on?

Thanks.

[LEGALEAGLE]

Foxhole said

Democracy is self-correcting.

Exactly.

Corporate states on the other hand are another matter

[TrentReznor858]

Zeinab said

Just wondering, but what would happen to things like literature, theatre, music, TV, film, the Internet etc. in a state implementing Shariah (regardless of whether it's in the 'West' or not)?
What sorts of ethics etc, would be applied to science, technology and so on?

Thanks.

90% would be outright destroyed, for various political and social control reasons. The remaining 10% would be heavily sensored and doctored by those in charge. Sound familiar?

[jinnzaman]

Zeinab said

Just wondering, but what would happen to things like literature, theatre, music, TV, film, the Internet etc. in a state implementing Shariah (regardless of whether it's in the 'West' or not)?
What sorts of ethics etc, would be applied to science, technology and so on?

Thanks.

These would continue to exist, but would probably be heavily regulated.

But who knows. The Shari'ah may be from Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) but there are different interpretations.