Active Users:151 Time:21/06/2024 11:41:39 PM
Re: Yes, I know. Monotonous Mantra - 28/04/2004 04:40:58 PM

My point (subtle though it was) is that is the reply to your argument. In other words, a great response to those Muslims who don't want to live under Sharia law is that they therefore aren't Muslims.

Grasping subtlety was never one of my skills. Your point is correct (edit: the adverse reaction to a different interpretation of law is there, to be more specific). I suppose (more) liberal advocates of the arbitration law might argue that baby steps might encourage a more refined interpretation of religion (under the religious/sharia court). I have my doubts about this where sharia is concerned, given these "leaders" do try to impose/impress their interpretations quite heavily.

This message last edited by Monotonous Mantra on 4/28/2004 at 4:42:12 PM.




View/create new replies Sign up for a premium account to add posts to a list of favourites!
Sharia in Canada - 28/04/2004 02:51:39 PM 168 Views
Cute. *NM* - 28/04/2004 02:57:02 PM 7 Views
That's a rather puzzling response. *NM* - 28/04/2004 02:58:05 PM 5 Views
It's Snuggly legislation if I've ever seen it *NM* - 28/04/2004 03:01:34 PM 2 Views
I skimmed thorugh the article (reading it again now) but... - 28/04/2004 03:07:01 PM 18 Views
I now am registered at... - 28/04/2004 03:27:09 PM 15 Views
Didn't used to have to register at WaPost. - 28/04/2004 03:30:25 PM 7 Views
I guess the real test for those who would support the law - 28/04/2004 03:29:39 PM 20 Views
Good point. - 28/04/2004 03:32:33 PM 24 Views
Lots of stuff, Avi - 28/04/2004 03:40:12 PM 23 Views
I would argue... - 28/04/2004 04:05:41 PM 15 Views
Re: Lots of stuff, Avi - 28/04/2004 04:05:45 PM 12 Views
Yes, I know. - 28/04/2004 04:32:13 PM 15 Views
Re: Yes, I know. - 28/04/2004 04:40:58 PM 12 Views
- 28/04/2004 05:13:13 PM 17 Views
I don't read your replies. Ever. *NM* - 28/04/2004 06:16:08 PM 3 Views
*blink* *NM* - 28/04/2004 06:16:50 PM 4 Views
I didn't see that. *NM* - 28/04/2004 06:34:12 PM 2 Views
Re: Good point. - 28/04/2004 03:42:21 PM 11 Views
Well the article says... - 28/04/2004 03:33:02 PM 12 Views
That was my initial thought, too. *NM* - 28/04/2004 03:40:00 PM 2 Views
I don't support either. The law of the land is the law of the land. - 28/04/2004 04:23:53 PM 21 Views
Don't/Can't all individuals do that? *NM* - 28/04/2004 04:25:14 PM 5 Views
Re: I don't support either. The law of the land is the law of the land. - 29/04/2004 07:23:54 AM 10 Views
Very interesting and well said. *NM* - 29/04/2004 10:02:44 AM 2 Views
Sweet. So, I'll make a religion with no punishment for theft... - 29/04/2004 02:52:56 PM 6 Views
The law of the land is determined by social values, - 29/04/2004 04:11:55 PM 8 Views
This is wrong. - 28/04/2004 06:55:29 PM 14 Views
I agree. *NM* - 28/04/2004 11:30:23 PM 2 Views