you're statement about self selection seems to mean nothing though because you end it by saying that they would need to respect the majority view so they would still be subject to shariah law.
They can form a secular party , speak their minds in media channels or even invite people to protest . If they managed to convince people to change the whole system , then change can be possible and legal democratically .
Do you think that foreign nationals living in Egypt, who are not Muslim, should be subject to Sharia law?
But you seem to care about what fellow Egyptians or other Muslims get up to so it seems that you're not bothered whether others burn in hell as long as they surrender as much of their money to you on their way there.
Isn't it their choice ? Isn't it their freedom ? , you really make me confused , if I say we are going to enforce the Shariah on everybody then I'm radical , if I say only on muslims who choose the shariah with democratic practice and freedom of will , then I'm uncaring about others' destiny in the afterlife . doesn't everyone has a mind to choose his path in life ?
I apologise for the use of sarcasm as it doesn't always translate well but I wasn't trying to portray you as uncaring. I was attempting to show how ridiculous the application of religious law was to some people but not to others.
I don't think the state should ever
enforce religious laws that can only be justified on the basis of faith. And you can't say that everyone has a mind to chose their own path if you're going to impose a law on them that can only be justified as a matter of faith because it will be irrational to anyone who does not possess that faith.
If you want to ban alcohol then make a case for it based on something rational like the harm it does to society or whatever but don't do it just because an ancient book claims it is the will of God. If you believe it is the will of God then don't drink alcohol but leave others alone if they're not harming you.
I've just realised that presented a very Rawlsian argument here but oh well, sometimes liberals get it right.
Why are you surprised? You said you didn't care what visitors to your country did so why would shopkeepers care whether non Muslims drink booze or read porn magazines?
I don't care what visitors do but alcohol and porn trade is forbidden in Islam to anyone . There is nothing like , it's fine if you are going to sell it to foreigners or non-muslims ! And I don't about .
It's double standards if you're happy to assist people in doing things you think are wrong just because there's money in it.
A friend told me recently that he'd been in his local corner shop and noticed that all of the alcohol had been removed from the shelves. when he asked why the shopkeeper replied that as they were Muslims they didn;t think it was right for them to be selling alcohol. His immediate thoughts were "well done for standing up for your principles" but he changed this somewhat when the local newspaper reported that the real reason was that they had lost their license to sell alcohol, for the second time, for selling it to children.
You want to say all muslims living in the west are like this ? Anyway I'm personally wouldn't do that according to the way I understand my religion .
Maybe I misunderstood your statement above when you wrote "There is nothing like , it's fine if you are going to sell it to foreigners or non-muslims" because I thought you meant it was fine to sell these things to foreigners and non Muslims. If I've misunderstood you then let me know.
But the only point I'm making is that be careful of claiming the moral high ground.