Jul 9, 2012 -- 3:31PM, Miraj wrote:

Actually, it is true because I said it.

Jul 9, 2012 -- 5:08PM, mountain_man wrote:

No, you saying something does not make it true.

If  she is, as she claims to be an expert authority on Islamic Law, then what she says regarding her area of expertise is true. 

If your car breaks down then  you would go to an automechanic because that is his area of expertise  he is an "authority" on fixing cars. 

You wouldn't go to a doctor to fix it,  because he is not an "authority" on cars.    

What the automechanic says is the problem with your car is true.  

What the doctor says is the problem is not true.  

Jul 9, 2012 -- 5:08PM, mountain_man wrote:

  

 These "courts" are religious courts, not civil courts. They have say only within the bounds of their religion.

The Fiqh Courts are BOTH "religous" AND "civil" courts. 

They must stay within the bounds of Sharia-God's Law.

Jul 9, 2012 -- 5:08PM, mountain_man wrote:

 They have no effect on anyone else.

Well that depends on what is meant be "someone else".

For example if by "someone else"  means someone who is not a Muslim it is not true. 

If a Muslim women marries an Atheist(God Forbid) man and a contract-Katb el-Kitab is signed then it does affect the "someone else-Atheist."

If a Secular Company signs a contract with an Islamic Company and "someone else-non-muslim." Then it does affect "someone else."

Jul 9, 2012 -- 5:08PM, mountain_man wrote:

They are not a threat to civil law in the USA.

That is true Sharia-Islamic-God's Law is not a threat to Secular Civil Law thanks to James Madison PBUH.  Yet! 

Neither is Sharia-Islamic-God's criminal law a threat to Secular Criminal Law.  Yet!

This is due to James Madison MJBH(May Jesus Bless Him) and the U.S. Secular Constitution. 

Jul 9, 2012 -- 4:47PM, Miraj wrote:

I can tell from your Avatar that you love both the U.S. and Israel.

My avatar does tend to draw attention.  All one has to do is ask why I chose it

I like your Avatar even though I don't "know" why you choose it.   

I would like an Avatar of a crucifix instead of a Star of David because I believe Jesus was a Secularist, in that he "rendered on to Ceasar what was Ceasar's and God unto to God."

Jul 7, 2012 -- 12:22PM, Sigmund wrote:

Dear lord, really? You're equating wearing a head or face covering with pedophilia and human sacrifice? Pathetic.

Don't be stupid. The statement was simply that you cannot use religion to skirt laws. Please participate in an adult manner. 

Jul 7, 2012 -- 12:22PM, Sigmund wrote:

And your last sentance is about two very different things. As long as the courts also allow Jewish, Christian, etc. laws to be used in the same way it is very different than allowing the icons of only one religion to be displayed on public property.

You miss the point.Think a little. The point was that those who oppose harmless holiday displays seem to have no problem with actually allowing Islamic laws to be considered by the courts.

Jul 7, 2012 -- 12:22PM, Sigmund wrote:

I do not what it is about thank you. Islamaphobia.

If you think it is about dietary laws then you certainly do not understand the crux of the discussion.

Jul 9, 2012 -- 4:43PM, Miraj wrote:

It's such a shame that Wikipedia is so relied on.  Part of the dumbing down of the planet . . . 

I disagree somewhat. Yes, Wiki has it's faults but it is tremendously accessable.

Jul 10, 2012 -- 7:50PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

I agree it is a logical fallacy.

 Then you should not have used it.

You did not point out any "flaws" in what I said but only pointed out your not understanding what I said.

Jul 10, 2012 -- 7:50PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

I agree it is a logical fallacy.

Jul 10, 2012 -- 8:12PM, mountain_man wrote:

Then you should not have used it.

But I didn't use it.  I explained how it can be used.  I explained how Miraj could use it.  

Jul 10, 2012 -- 8:12PM, mountain_man wrote:

You did not point out any "flaws" in what I said but only pointed out your not understanding what I said.

One example: 

"

These "courts" are religious courts, not civil courts. They have say only within the bounds of their religion.

This is flawed because Figh Courts are BOTH religous AND civil courts.  

These "courts" are religious courts, not civil courts. They have say only within the bounds of their religion.