However, as long as such claims are being made- we will have to falsify 'em.😏
Let's debunk all the myths.
The Supremacy Of The Shari’a- A Thread 🧵
However, as long as such claims are being made- we will have to falsify 'em.😏
Let's debunk all the myths.
In fact, around a billion people live in extreme poverty conditions under the notion of secularism.
https://t.co/gVp2jRtjqU
https://t.co/oZELY0BFrd
The Shari'a states successfully eradicated poverty by creation of a welfare society & the institutionalization of obligatory charity.
https://t.co/5xpQkQ6ZQb
https://t.co/KH1sl1omB5
https://t.co/38ak5CUK1L
This can be explained by the theory of Synnomie, which explains 0% crime rates & ideal social order under the Shari'a.
https://t.co/QwtLB6xEFW
https://t.co/HskBa5qy4P
https://t.co/mklS6BIOL0
Statistics tell us that the crime rates in the Shari'a societies is 100x less than that in the atheistic-secular societies.
https://t.co/xKIjEFfpkK
No Sharia is what works.
— Dr. Khalid PhD \U0001f1e7\U0001f1f3\u262a\ufe0f (@TenMillionIQ) December 10, 2020
Sharia results in crime rates 100 times lower than the secular West.https://t.co/qhWn8RC44D
Sharia is the only law system to achieve synnomie.https://t.co/6hHZYuILHj
And no there is no "underreporting" of any crimes in Sharia.https://t.co/HPWj7xeTBW https://t.co/jbzukhdr5Q pic.twitter.com/Ht90DxIFpd
More adherence to Islam led to less chronic & acute diseases, greater well-being & longer, healthier lives.
https://t.co/8r5mFICMxd
https://t.co/UIAnIEZBOw
Infact "washing hands" & general hygiene was an alien concept to Europeans, the Muslim European lands (eg. Bosnia & Turkey) have a greater hygiene than their counterparts.
Historical evidence (by western academia) suggests that there was hardly anyone who couldn't read or write (basically 100% literacy rates).
Although the Europeans saw Islam as a "heresy" they still were flabbergasted by it's magnanimous intellectual riches.
https://t.co/PcuWpyPskc
In contrast, Islam empowered & protected women by stipulating these rights +1400 years back.
https://t.co/7bPzleRJDc
https://t.co/0EJ97XpEHN
No other woman from any other civilizations before had managed to do this.
https://t.co/3hd6pBB9hP
Islam successfully eradicated drug abuse using a step-by-step prohibition model.
Even without the Shari'a, it's effects in the Muslim world are still vivid.
https://t.co/ZWhoEYHdgr
Muslim adherence to their faith by abstaining from pre/extra-marital sex & alcohol, practicing circumcision etc. is what led to it's accomplishment.
https://t.co/6wkUP2Ia7d
From the above bulk of evidence, there should hardly be a shadow of doubt.
https://t.co/gHjHGdkX8L
More from Law
This thread will debunk "the judges didn't look at evidence" nonsense that has been going around.
Over and over again, judges have gone out of their way to listen to the evidence and dismantle it, enjoy the carnage!
1/
Bowyer v. Ducey (Sidney Powell's case in Arizona)
"Plaintiffs have not moved the
needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"
This is a great opinion to start with. The Judge completely dismantles the nonsense brought before her.
2/
https://t.co/F2vllUhM2G
King vs. Whitmer (Michigan, Sidney Powell case)
"Nothing but speculation and conjecture"
This is a good one to show people who think affidavits are good evidence. Notice how the affidavits don't actually say they saw fraud happen in Detroit.
3/
https://t.co/NZAtqivWkL
Trump v. Benson (Michigan)
"hearsay within hearsay"
Another good one to show people who think affidavits are absolute proof.
4/
https://t.co/17GeGhImHF
Stoddard v. City Election Commission (Michigan)
"mere speculation"
/5
https://t.co/ekqYEqiIL9
Over and over again, judges have gone out of their way to listen to the evidence and dismantle it, enjoy the carnage!
1/
Bowyer v. Ducey (Sidney Powell's case in Arizona)
"Plaintiffs have not moved the
needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"
This is a great opinion to start with. The Judge completely dismantles the nonsense brought before her.
2/
https://t.co/F2vllUhM2G
King vs. Whitmer (Michigan, Sidney Powell case)
"Nothing but speculation and conjecture"
This is a good one to show people who think affidavits are good evidence. Notice how the affidavits don't actually say they saw fraud happen in Detroit.
3/
https://t.co/NZAtqivWkL
Trump v. Benson (Michigan)
"hearsay within hearsay"
Another good one to show people who think affidavits are absolute proof.
4/
https://t.co/17GeGhImHF
Stoddard v. City Election Commission (Michigan)
"mere speculation"
/5
https://t.co/ekqYEqiIL9
There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
To the extent that precedents matter in this trial, when hearsay has been challenged in past trials, it's been admitted if it's probative. And it's been noted that senators aren't *regular* jurors, but rather people of learning who can figure on their own how to weigh evidence.
— Ira Goldman \U0001f986\U0001f986\U0001f986 (@KDbyProxy) January 24, 2020
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
Oral argument in scheduled for January 21 at 3 pm in this case & will be telephonic. To listen, call 1-800-768-2983, code: 2640561#. Alternate phone numbers if the toll-free number gives you trouble: 1-907-206-2349 or 1-913-904-9867 or 1-212-231-3884.
— Alaska Court System (@AlaskaCourt) January 20, 2021
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
You May Also Like
Following @BAUDEGS I have experienced hateful and propagandist tweets time after time. I have been shocked that an academic community would be so reckless with their publications. So I did some research.
The question is:
Is this an official account for Bahcesehir Uni (Bau)?
Bahcesehir Uni, BAU has an official website https://t.co/ztzX6uj34V which links to their social media, leading to their Twitter account @Bahcesehir
BAU’s official Twitter account
BAU has many departments, which all have separate accounts. Nowhere among them did I find @BAUDEGS
@BAUOrganization @ApplyBAU @adayBAU @BAUAlumniCenter @bahcesehirfbe @baufens @CyprusBau @bauiisbf @bauglobal @bahcesehirebe @BAUintBatumi @BAUiletisim @BAUSaglik @bauebf @TIPBAU
Nowhere among them was @BAUDEGS to find
The question is:
Is this an official account for Bahcesehir Uni (Bau)?
Bahcesehir Uni, BAU has an official website https://t.co/ztzX6uj34V which links to their social media, leading to their Twitter account @Bahcesehir
BAU’s official Twitter account
BAU has many departments, which all have separate accounts. Nowhere among them did I find @BAUDEGS
@BAUOrganization @ApplyBAU @adayBAU @BAUAlumniCenter @bahcesehirfbe @baufens @CyprusBau @bauiisbf @bauglobal @bahcesehirebe @BAUintBatumi @BAUiletisim @BAUSaglik @bauebf @TIPBAU
Nowhere among them was @BAUDEGS to find