ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Viking]

It isn't really. There are two types basically - sharia in personal status and full sharia. Since Syria already has sharia in personal status, what do you think armed factions mean when they say they want to enforce sharia?

That's an oversimplification. There is theory, and there is practice. As an example, the UAE seems fond of handing out the odd death by stoning sentence, but they don't appear to be carrying them out very often (if at all):

He added that Abu Dhabi Criminal Court has previously sentenced defendants in similar cases to death by stoning, but the sentences were never carried out.

A judicial expert said that although UAE laws are based on Sharia law, the courts exercise leniency as much as possible on people charged with such offences.

http://7days.ae/expat-faces-death-st...eating-husband

Furthermore, the legal system of different countries appear to be flirting with sharia to different degrees.

So, there's really no point in using the word at all. Why did you use it then? Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?

I am using it with a very common and meaningful sense of the word (like it is used e.g. here and countless other places). When one wants to specify a certain type of democracy, one uses modifiers: modern democracy, liberal democracy, Western democracy etc. Such use with modifiers is extremely common; just look around.

You seem confused over the definition of an Islamist - wanting to impose one's own interpretation of Islam on a state-level.

Using different sources I can find different definitions; and no matter which definition is agreed upon, there will be borderline cases.

It's not just a matter of how you and me use the word, but also potential sources describing the situation in Syria.

http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=59855

I see nothing about them being "former Al-Nusra people".