Ninad Gaikwad's conclusion:

I hope I have demonstrated just how barbaric and unfair the Sharia law is. Not only is it openly discriminatory it is also a failure in the department of judiciary and finance (banks cannot sustain themselves without interest).  It is also impractical, since my opponent was unable to provide a single example of a country which had even come close to applying the real Sharia law. It can easily be exploited and misused by corrupt people (although I would argue that it was made to be used like that) as seen in countries like Saudi Arabia, where crazy mullahs make up insane laws like banning women from driving or countries like Iran which punish rape victims for the crime of adultery.

It seeks to undo all the basic rights our ancestors fought for (atleast in democratic countries) like freedom of speech. It also permits ancient practices like slavery and taking war captives for sexual satisfaction. It is a theocracy in which people of other religion, or no religion, are discriminated against.
The books from which we get all the laws of Sharia also contain hateful words against disbelievers. The books mention how all the non-believers are vilest of creatures who deserve nothing but eternal torture and even go into gory details about how that torture would be. Does my opponent expect us to believe that the lawmakers in Sharia (who will OBVIOSLY and COMPULSARILY be ONLY Muslims) will not be affected by this? There will be no prejudice against the people who their book curses out so many times? And since the non-religious will have no representation in the government who will fulfill their political needs?
We know that Islam wants to dominate the world. The Muslims have never been secretive about this desire and proudly proclaim it at rallies and protests (which are too many to count).  And implementing Sharia is an excellent way to accomplish this, as you strip non-Muslims of basic rights and freedoms. Modern society has no problems giving political, or government seats to people of all religions. Sharia on the other hand does. This fact alone proves the superiority of democracy over Sharia.

Then there’s the question of scientific advancement. As we all know Islam is against scientific fields like biology and cosmology. Science continues to disprove their holy scripture, and surely under Sharia this will not be tolerated. So we can kiss science as we know it goodbye if we ever have the misfortune of embracing Sharia.
Sharia is desirable only for Muslim citizens. It is openly against human rights and inferior to most laws ever created. I don’t even understand how this issue was debatable. I had the clear advantage in this topic as it’s obvious to anyone who has even basic knowledge of Sharia that it is certainly not welcome in our civilization. I rest my case.

Bill Maher: The plain fact is religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people - by irrationalists - by those who would steer the ship of state, not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. 
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

0 Response to "What is better for current society, the current social order or Shariah? A Debate. Part 6"

Post a Comment