Like Reagan’s dire rhetoric on communism, warnings of a looming Islamic takeover have come from Republicans running for president. Yet support for such bans has come from the highest political spheres. To suggest that banning Sharia or the Bible is the only way to ward off the stoning of women or the execution of apostates is clearly, maliciously false. Sharia is as much a threat to our Constitution as Bible verses calling for the stoning of adulterers or the genocidal directive in Deuteronomy to leave “alive nothing that breathes.” Like the Old and New Testaments, Sharia has its own conflicts and tensions with modern conceptions of gender equality and citizenship. Although the emergence of the nation-state did away with the premodern methodology of Sharia, its current manifestations are either a source of legislation or actual state law in many Muslim countries.įrom a legal perspective, the wave of anti-Sharia legislation should be much ado about nothing. For devout Muslims, Sharia governs everything from the way they eat to how they treat animals and protect the environment, to how they do business, how they marry and how their estate is distributed after death. More than simply “law” in the prescriptive sense, it is also the methodology through which Muslims engage with foundational religious texts to search for the divine will. Sharia, or Islamic law, is a complex system of moral codes that governs all aspects of Muslim life. (The Oklahoma statute was struck down this past January, with a federal court ruling that lawmakers failed to “identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve.”) Richard Thompson, a former Michigan prosecutor and president of the right-wing Thomas More Law Center-whose website cites “Confronting the Threat of Islam” as a key part of its advocacy-recently admitted that “Sharia law is the thing people think about” when it comes to such bans. Since 2010, when Oklahoma voters first passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting judges from considering international law in their decisions, two dozen states have proposed or passed similar legislation. Alkaloids, including caffeine, nicotine, cocaine, and morphine, can affect multiple cellular processes if a plant cannot kill its attackers, it can overstimulate them with caffeine or sedate them with morphine.The Kansas law is hardly unique. Many of these secondary metabolites affect herbivores as well as humans (table 40.1). Plants maintain chemical arsenals How did the biosynthetic pathways that produce these toxins evolve? Growing evidence indicates that the metabolic pathways needed to sustain life in plants have taken some evolutionary side trips, leading to the production of a stockpile of chemicals known as secondary metabolites. In addition to toxins that kill, plants can produce other toxins that make potential herbivores ill or that repel them with strong flavors or odors. Unless these outer layers are scrubbed off, the cumulative effect of eating primarily cassava can be deadly. Cassava (genus Manihot ), a major food staple for many Africans, is filled with cyanogenic glycosides (specifically, manihotoxins) in the outer layers of the edible root.
Cyanide stops electron transport, blocking cellular respiration. Over 3000 species of plants produce cyanide-containing compounds called cyanogenic glycosides that break down into cyanide when ingested. One example is the production of cyanide, (HCN). Not all bacteria and fungi are harmful some provide plants with compounds that enhance growth. Suberin and cutin secreted by the dermal tissues form barriers that prevent invasion and lessen water loss, but invaders have evolved numerous strategies to overcome these barriers. The dermal tissue system is the firs t line of defense.
0 kommentar(er)
