[...unsourced lists, but which I'm fairly certain are highly biased and refer to a country none of us have ever set foot in...]
Every possible change in a society, if you consider whether it will or will not happen, must be considered in a context relative to the society you're talking about. Authoritarianism in the mid east will have a far different form than authoritarianism in the united states.
There is a quote: "When fascism comes to the united states, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross," or something like that. Everything is relative to the society/culture that is already in place.
...
But all who read this keep in mind that nobody, unless they actually live in Iraq or some such place, will actually be talking about creating a legal system in Iraq, etc. Most of us live in the united states, I assume, and all talk of legal codes/principles to implement are generally in the context of that person's own country.
So, again, because the society we "live" in is both (probably) America or some other english speaking country, and perhaps in a sense, the internet, and that none of us are lawmakers, and as such it's not practicalitys we're talking about, but principles, and not in the context of transplanting from some mid-eastern country:
The essence of the idea of sharia law is, I think, of "an eye for an eye," regardless of what does or does not go on in various mid-eastern countries; As i've said before, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. And if two people use the same word for something, but define it differently, than all their comments are irrelevant to each other. So, whether one will refuse to associate the term "sharia law" with public stonings and what not, the essence, I think, in principle is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," literally.
The idea is that, if you kill someone, you are killed. If you cut out someone's eye, you have your eye cut out.
But more relevant to ordinary people would be things like: If you steal someone's treasured possession, you lose something of your own, that you value as much as they did that other item, and so on.
And this would not be so bad, as a legal principle.
Certainly not as bad as some present it.
Last edited: