Originally Posted by Moshin
Corrupted, meaning no religion in mind and influenced by western culture such as, music and television etc. I am not sure whether Sharia law will get rid of poverty in Bangladesh. But I was watching a programme on AlJazeera called 1 On 1 East, some man part of a party which supports Sharia law, thinks bringing Sharia law to Indonesia will get rid of poverty and corruption, such as the conversion of people to Christianity which has led to mass killings.
That does not makes any sense. Development does not mean Saudi Arab would become culturally more corrupt by western influence. Wouldn't that break the whole purpose of having Shariah law in place? Also, if that means Saudi Arab should stay under-developed, then it is only economically strong because it has oil. Therefore having Shariah law would serve no useful purpose in a country like ours. So is it not better to let people embrace other cultures, decide for themselves, than stay under-developed, in poverty and politically corrupt? As for the Indonesian example you gave, I don't see any correlation between fighting poverty/corruption and conversion. If it results in mass killings, what more proof do you need?