Reply With Quote
You quoted yourself. You're the only person I am aware of here who goes on full tilt while talking to yourself.
Here I'm quoting myself because I successfully predicted exactly what you would do for the next few days.
You quoted yourself. You're the only person I am aware of here who goes on full tilt while talking to yourself.
narrative
i'm not making it palatable. i personally disagree with the content of sharia and along with everybody on this board, never want the US or any state therein to recognize, codify, or enforce it. this type of religious mumbo jumbo is backwards thinking stuff and holds us back as a species, and thats not limited to the muslim faith.
you posted a definition of law and now dont like that definition of law.
sharia isn't now nor has it even been a law of the US or any state therein. that doesnt mean sharia isn't practiced here by willing participants. its not an all or nothing endeavor. just because they aren't stoning gays to death on the streets of minneapolis doesnt mean they aren't practicing it.
The definition clearly states that the law may impose penalties for violation. Having a code doesn't give you any legal right to impose penalties. It certainly doesn't give Sharia law believers the right to impose penalties that Sharia law prescribes ergo they cannot practice that law. Law that cannot be practiced isn't in effect.
yeah, you're taking it as an all or nothing. either they can stone gays in the street or its not sharia. they can observe their laws however they want. the community/house of worship dictates it
"Is it true that Sharia does prescribe harsh punishment for acts such as adultery?"
"I want to caution against reducing Sharia to just one or two legal principles and picking out certain punishments as being characteristic of Sharia. It is much more fruitful to start with Sharia’s fundamental objectives."
This kind of misdirection and sidestepping questions like this is part and parcel of the Muslim religion and apologists for Sharia law. It doesn't ing matter how fruitful they make your life, if they kill you for ing your neighbor then that's a non starter. They always shy away from addressing the elephant in the room.
Then it's not a law. Doing whatever they want isn't law, not by any standard I ever read or heard of.
its observed in the manner the community and its members see fit. its not a state or federal law that binds any unwilling participant
It says nothing about "it's members see fit".
It says "the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members".
You are using the term "community" here to mean any group of people with common beliefs. Since the statement also uses "country" then the term "community" would most likely mean a city, state or jurisdiction.
If people can do whatever they want, then it's not Sharia, unless you also think they can call it whatever they want. The point of a "law" is that you are not allowed to do whatever you want, because by law you have to walk a certain path (Sharia).
You did quote yourself then changed your own quote.
That's full tilt.
That's narrative.
You've been trying to force your narratives on everyone for two days and it's just not working.
You posted a definition that actually fits what everyone else is saying and now you don't want anyone to use it.
Full tilt.
Sorry, DerpMC.
I already said why - "Since the statement also uses 'country'"...
Did you just ignore that?
So unless you want to consider "country" to mean anywhere but the city, then you need to accept that the definition is using a geographical land mass occupied by people and "community" means subsections of that country. So federal laws or local laws, but religious laws are merely codes and seemingly very malleable since you think people can do whatever they want.
I haven't said anything that's incorrect. I showed you quoting yourself. Quoting yourself when no one is even talking to you equates to talking to yourself. Then you disagreed with yourself and changed your own words.
That's full tilt.
You've been told exactly what everyone means according to your own definition and you been turning backflips trying to change the definition you posted and decided to disagree with.
That's full tilt, .
Chumpy on 24 hour monitoring duty, living the dream from that dank room
DerpMC arguing with this guy he makes narratives about with his fat hands nonstop.Chumpy on 24 hour monitoring duty, living the dream from that dank room
Anyone come in and change your sack out yet?DerpMC arguing with this guy he makes narratives about with his fat hands nonstop.
Anyone come in and change your sack out yet?
You pe ion the dictionary publisher to change the definition you posted yet?
In principle, not so different.
Religious code being the civil law and neighborhood Promise Keepers being the local constabulary might not be the best idea, but societies choose for themselves.
If you think 1.2 percent of the US population is theatening to make Sharia the civil code in the US, you're cracked.
No one even hinted at that last sentence.
In principle, the rules of Scrabble are also laws and every argument can devolve into a solipsism when you realize you've lost.
Why, you can just take alternative meanings to every word in it.
You pe ion the dictionary publisher to change the definition you posted yet?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions