Breitbart is all over Khan from the DNC rally

[Spider]

[The Comrade]

[spacemonkey]

[Saz]

[ToddStarnes]

Yeah, I know. Muslims are far, far more religious than Christians, Jews, etc, which is a disaster because actually following any of the Abrahamic religion's holy texts requires you to be a murdering psychopath.

But there are plenty of Muslims who don't follow it, especially in the West. That's the point I was trying to allude to with Galt. Religions eventually find a way to interpret out all the crazy shit (Jesus changed everything, it's just a parable and not meant to be taken literally, etc.). Plenty of Muslims have managed to do the same (but obviously not enough, given how batshit insane a lot of Muslim countries are).

[Saz]

[ToddStarnes]

[Saz]

Yes but if you keep halal you just say halal, you don't start talking about sharia. It's like keeping kosher...it doesn't make you orthodox. Sharia almost always refers to the theocratic legal code...not individual things that a pious person may prefer like halal or hajj. Not 100% sure if that's how it is across the Muslim world but I know that's generally the take on sharia among uk, Nigerian, Moroccan Muslims.

I just read your point a few posts above what I responded to. No, there really isn't an individual version of sharia. Sharia is a legal code, it applies to all. More liberal read western views often view it as a code that applies only to Muslims, but 90% of the time this stems from a practical understanding that the uk won't do away with common law in favor of sharia anytime soon. If you want to follow sharia you can do that, but that's generally just seen as following the tenants of the religion. Sharia is the code that applies to all of society (or all Muslims in the society). In every respect it is a theocratic legal code. What really distinguishes it from an individual Muslim practicing their faith is that it applies the religion to a third party. If you steal, you lose your hand. I doubt even the most pious Muslim would chop off their own hand (then again who knows these guys blow themselves up on the reg.)

I'm rambling but you get the point. That said, I think there is ample space to read, learn and write about sharia in an academic and historical context, as it was and today still is one of the oldest and most widespread legal codes known to man. But to actually think it should be implemented today is as insane and anti liberal as advocating for hamurabis code or something. No one moderate, liberal or who believes in a secular state or society would advocate for it.

[spacemonkey]

The Amish have a pretty strict religion in how they live their lives. Also, they don't strap bombs on themselves to kill the non Amish. So all this Sharia bullshit is just that, fifth century bullshit that has no place in the modern world.

[Edarmoc]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -amendment

Just curious what everyone thinks the eventual effects of this will be. I'm kind of inclined to think that it was an asinine thing to say, but that actual threat of death or violence was probably not the intent. Plus, I don't really know what information could come out about the candidates to really swing polling one way or the other. It's pretty different options you have as far as the major nominees go.