ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Viking]

It is pretty well know what shariah means, it is a freaking system of laws. Those are generally most well defined concepts in the history of the human race.

Yet the actual application of sharia varies from country to country. Isn't that strange.

I'm having fun showing how clueless you are.

In that case, you have done a rather poor job until now. Perhaps you meant to say that you are just trolling.

8000000 years ago, there were guinea pigs the size of SUVs. What is your point?

Should be rather obvious. A system that might be called 'democracy' today might not be called one tomorrow, rendering the word rather useless through inherent volatility.

It's like if death penalty only counts as death penalty if it was issued for 'non-serious crimes', where the collection of serious crimes can be defined and re-defined over and over.

"They don't practice death penalty in the US; only serious crimes can get anyone executed by the state after trial."
"They practice democracy in the US; the state there respects human rights."

See how robust either of the two statements are when it comes to preserving the deeper information they are capable of storing.

[Sarmatian]

Yet the actual application of sharia varies from country to country. Isn't that strange.

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?

In that case, you have done a rather poor job until now. Perhaps you meant to say that you are just trolling.

Well, I couldn't have done it before now, since I've just started doing it.

Should be rather obvious. A system that might be called 'democracy' today might not be called one tomorrow, rendering the word rather useless through inherent volatility.

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?

[CrossLOPER]

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?

Viking is Robert Mugabe.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I love it when Eastern and Northern Europeans argue over Islam.

[AE Bravo]

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

Source?

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

The Levant Front’s charter, released in June, called for the establishment of Islamic government with Sharia as the sole source of law.

“Our main goal is to bring down the regime, and to achieve the aims of the people for a democratic civil state with multiple religions and sects.”

In the Arabic language it's perfectly fine to talk about democracy and consensus when describing Islamic governance, because this provides something to aspire to considering nobody knows what Islamic governance really is. Like you argue in your last few posts, there is a spectrum of democracy and this is what you'd find on the Islamist end of it. If I was fighting under a jihad banner a shura council would be the extent of democracy in my book, this is what Saudi Arabia already has for example so that's not saying much. Putting aside the fact that Islamists like to put on a pretty face for the media to attract air support against its enemies, which has been working for a long time.

No non-state actor has shown any willingness to introduce the democratic capabilities of sharia you'd find in Egypt and Iran for example. An exception *might* be Muslim Brotherhood, because they at least start with grassroots and peaceful attempts at reform rather than violent movements.

[Sarmatian]

I love it when Eastern and Northern Europeans argue over Islam.

I'm southern European. Know your geography.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm southern European. Know your geography.

Anything east of Croatia are just former commies, hence eastern. Besides, would you really want to get lumped with the likes of Italy and Greece?

[Sarmatian]

Anything east of Croatia are just former commies, hence eastern. Besides, would you really want to get lumped with the likes of Italy and Greece?

1. Croatians are also former commies

2. I'd personally like to get lumped with the likes of Brazil - samba, topless volleyball, cachaca, caipirinha, that sort of thing. Apparently, it's not an option, so I'm stuck with Italians, Greeks and Croatians. Sucks.

[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".

[AE Bravo]

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

I find it hard to believe that Islamists are hard to identify, especially when all their charters share a centerpiece.

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

I can't find those words specifically in English. You should look into them, they are hardline Salafis who turned it down in order to attract more people with sketchy unIslamic past to confront Al Nusra. After their defeat quite a few of them turned over to Al Nusra now as well. Just a bunch of disgruntled rebel officials switching allegiances nothing to see here.

In any case, they don't matter because they've pretty much disbanded. This is old news, so no moderates in Syria this is the point.

[CrossLOPER]

Using different sources I can find different definitions

How many definitions can you find of the word "pedantic"?

[Viking]

I find it hard to believe that Islamists are hard to identify, especially when all their charters share a centerpiece.

I doubt every tiny rebel group will have an official charter.

In any case, they don't matter because they've pretty much disbanded. This is old news, so no moderates in Syria this is the point.

That's indeed the old news, the they're back now.

How many definitions can you find of the word "pedantic"?

Considering that that sub-thread concerned definitions right from the get-go, the word you are looking for is amnesia.

[AE Bravo]

I doubt every tiny rebel group will have an official charter.

They do. They're also not that tiny because they're a coalition of various salafi rebel groups.

That's indeed the old news, the they're back now.

This is a problem that most of these news outlets have. Even in the link you provided, the flag of the so-called "Levant Front" doesn't even say that, it's now officially Ahrar Al Sham aka Levant Liberators or something like that.
This is them now: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...yond-455405201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham

[Fragony]

edit, que wrong thread

[Viking]

They do. They're also not that tiny because they're a coalition of various salafi rebel groups.

That group has a charter (and that charter is obviously islamist), yes, but I was having Syrian rebel groups in general in mind.

This is a problem that most of these news outlets have. Even in the link you provided, the flag of the so-called "Levant Front" doesn't even say that, it's now officially Ahrar Al Sham aka Levant Liberators or something like that.
This is them now: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...yond-455405201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham

Wiki says something else, and the other source does not appear to mention the Levant Front at all.

[CrossLOPER]

Considering that that sub-thread concerned definitions right from the get-go, the word you are looking for is amnesia.

You failed at proving your point and decided to start your own argument as a tool of misdirection.

I'll say this again: it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a healthy democracy where there are explicit, institutional violations of human rights.

[Viking]

You failed at proving your point and decided to start your own argument as a tool of misdirection.

I'll say this again: it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a healthy democracy where there are explicit, institutional violations of human rights.

Yet another example of a straw man argument. I have said nothing about a 'healthy' democracy, I said this:

If they are sincere in their talk about democracy, then that democracy provides an opening towards a better state.

In other words, what matters is if they can vote for representatives that can alter the constitution, the legal frame work etc. - it doesn't matter whether or not adulterers are stoned to death at the time of voting any more than the amount of Syrian pounds they have to pay for speeding. There is an opening for change.

Now if you could argue against what I said rather than what you imagine I said, that would be a massive improvement.

The argument about what constitutes an islamist was a minor sub-thread that had nothing to do with the democracy line of debate.