The Supremacy Of The Shari’a- A Thread 🧵

The Shari'a Law has been a subject of inequitable prejudice for a long time, which we already know is false & illogical.

However, as long as such claims are being made- we will have to falsify 'em.😏

Let's debunk all the myths.
Harvard Economists point out how eradication of poverty in secular states is one of the pressing issues academics face.

In fact, around a billion people live in extreme poverty conditions under the notion of secularism.

https://t.co/gVp2jRtjqU

https://t.co/oZELY0BFrd
Contrary to secularism-Islam was extremely triumphant in this regard.

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
A logical outcome of 0% poverty is 0% crime rates, as criminologists point out.

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
Moreover, the effectiveness of capital punishments in the Shari'a law can be verified statistically.

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
Studies indicated that being a Muslim is positively leads to better mental & physical health, optimism & quality of life.

More adherence to Islam led to less chronic & acute diseases, greater well-being & longer, healthier lives.

https://t.co/8r5mFICMxd
https://t.co/UIAnIEZBOw
It consequently follows that the Shari'a societies bolstered greater health & well-being than others.

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.
Islam through the Qur'anic & Prophetic injunctions about the obligation of knowledge boosted education & eradicated illiteracy.

Historical evidence (by western academia) suggests that there was hardly anyone who couldn't read or write (basically 100% literacy rates).
Even the western academics recognize the importance of Islam for the scientific development & it's role in vilifying "dark ages".

Although the Europeans saw Islam as a "heresy" they still were flabbergasted by it's magnanimous intellectual riches.

https://t.co/PcuWpyPskc
The colonial west gave women no right to divorce, own property (which was only introduced in 1882 & 1857) & denied them basic rights.

In contrast, Islam empowered & protected women by stipulating these rights +1400 years back.

https://t.co/7bPzleRJDc
https://t.co/0EJ97XpEHN
Islam's empowerment for women was so profound, that the first & the oldest university, "Al-Karaouine" was founded by a Muslim woman.

No other woman from any other civilizations before had managed to do this.
https://t.co/3hd6pBB9hP
Religion in general and Islam in particular is the best way to combat drug abuse.

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
Islam also successfully diminished HIV/STD Rates to virtually 0% in 100% Muslim-populated areas.

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
This is the theory of "Realistic Utopia", it states that the only way for a society to reach perfect harmony & function is through the application of the Shari’a Law.

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
I was right. "Lawyer" starts out with name-calling and an insistence that trial is "unconstitutional". He's saying Trump's 1/6 speech was rather bland, and pretending that was the only thing the House managers talked about, and the managers were "slanderous."

Bilious bullshit.


"Lawyer" is arguing that since there were objections raised by Democrats to some of the vote counts in 2016, that means Trump didn't engage in sedition.

I'm not sure how that logic works.

Now they're running a Trump campaign commercial.

A bunch of whataboutism, contrasting patriotic music behind Trump's racist dogwhistles about "law and order" against Democrats making firey speeches with dark music.

He went to the moronic Gym Jordan argument that Trump couldn't have instigated insurrection if the violence was gonna happen anyway (without acknowledging Trump had been encouraging and building up to that violence for close to a year).
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."

You May Also Like