Only if assume putting a number next to a variable means multiplication (and I freely admit that is the usual standard).
But it could mean “substitution”, so that 3x becomes 38 when x=8. Which of course means that there is no solution.
This. I was just going to ask why we assume that everyone is actually going to tell the truth of what they actually believe to a pollster.
There is a solution if you allow x = (-6)
Then 3(-6) + 7 = 24 + 7 = 31
Nothing says that the numbers have to be positive.
The nice thing is, it’s still true even if you change the base from base 10 to another base, provided the base is greater than seven.
No, that is not Islamic law. It is one of the interpretations.
It is a more clear interpretation when the father is involved in the raising of the children.
It is the general precept of the islamic law that if one of the parents is Muslim, the child should be raised and considered Muslim.
But if the Muslim parent does not do this, then it is not the child’s error.
No, since his father did not raise him and he was not at all raised as a muslim, he is not an apostate under the more ordinary interpretations. I have never in the past eight years ever heard any ordinary muslim refer to him in that way, not in Arabic, not otherwise.
of course among the takfiri salafistes, who do not hesitate to declare ordinary muslims apostates I can not doubt they have made such statements, but they say that about anyone who disagrees with them.
What is “known” in the american conservative circles about the Islam and the Islamic law and what is reality have only a weak relationship. Like what is know and asserted here about the religion and the middle east region. Of course the cartoon images and thinking all islam is afghan and saudi islam is now dominant among these segements.
Maybe my math is really off, but what I see there is -18 + 7 = -11.
it is better than yours.
not at all as the facts under the islamic law for those situations are different - and of course the Sudan has a very nasty interpretation.
not really - it only shows the lack of knowledge.
Bill Burr, Visionary
That makes no difference at all. Even if you’re correct - and IIRC you are a long term Muslim apologist, so I wouldn’t take empty assertions from you at face value - it’s a widespread enough interpretation that it represents a normative Islamic position. Which is what counts.
Again, the context here is whether it’s possible that some of the Republicans responding that Obama is a Muslim are alluding to his status under Islamic law, rather than what he practices. For this purpose it makes no difference if it’s an interpretation of Islamic law shared by many many Muslims and various major Islamic countries - even if not accepted by all Muslims - or if it’s whatever you would technically consider “Islamic law”.
And that’s all even assuming that what you’re saying is correct to begin. I’ve linked to government and legal policy in Iran and the Sudan (plus a woman born to a Muslim father and who grew up studying Islamin Islamabad). You’ve shown nothing.
If you were supposed to multiply then where was the multiplication sign. If that’s what they meant they should have written it like: 3xx+7=31. And that would still be wrong.
First and foremost I think republicans should be allowed to vote and shouldn’t be murdered.
That said there is a bunch of interesting stuff in the cross tabs of the linked poll.
On page 14 and 15 you can see the responses to Obama born in the US and Obama a muslim broken down by first choice. Only Bush, Christie and Kasich supporters are more often right than wrong on both these questions.
On page 74 you can see republican primary support broken down by christian/muslim.
Overall top 3: Trump (29), Carson (15), Bush (9)
Muslim top 3: Trump (35), Carson (17), Fiorina (8)
Chistian top 3: Trump (24), Bush (19), Kasich (19)
FWIW, Kasich is at 6% overall and Carson has support of just 1% of republicans who think Obama is a christian.
On pages 75-77 you can see head to head match ups of Trump versus Bush, Carson, Fiorina, Rubio, and Walker broken down by Obama christian/muslim.
Trump beats everyone but Carson among all republicans, but Trump loses to everyone but Walker when you look at republicans who believe Obama is christian.
FWIW, here’s the State Department report on Algeria
Sounds like we’re up to at least 4 countries where this is state policy - possibly more. ISTM that anyone claiming that this is not the mainstream Islamic position has their work cut out for them.
But again, even if it’s not universally accepted, it’s apparently accepted by enough Muslims so that apologists like Ramira can’t just wave it away as he/she is doing here.
If Republicans or Democrats didn’t exist they’d have to be invented. We couldn’t get our amazing agenda into law because of those evil Republicrats. Give us more money and maybe next time we’ll let you kick the football. The funny thing is Emmanuel Goldstein was subject to only a two minute hate.
I can not help what mentally challenged hypcrites and distoritionists like FP can write, but of course I have already noted that it is the ordinary precept that a child born of a muslim parent should be raised as a muslim. If in the islamic country this precept holds. It was already also stated this precept does not hold for a child not raised in this cirucmstance. None of the laws cited are relevant to this (and of course the algeria is not islamic law, it is a civil law).
The case of Obama does not meet the cirucmstance and no one in ordinary islam refers to him as apostate at all.
It is simple whatever the disingenous generator of the straw man wants to have for his stupid politics.
I’m commenting on Folacin’s interpretation of place-value, rather than multiplication (which you’re still assuming), as in the example I quote in the post of mine that you are quoting
It comes down to vision rather than intelligence. Is that operator a division sign, an addition sign, or a subtraction sign?
Because they own all the guns.
The Old South conservatives liked these since it stopped black people from voting.
The progressives liked these since it stopped black people from voting when influences by Old South conservatives.
Actually, all these people lauding a property qualification for voting perhaps fail to realise that in place it would have prevented 99% of black people from voting at all from 1865 to 1965. And probably longer since they would have remained propertyless for many years later without politicians catering for their votes.
Plus there’s the whole restrictive* covenants thing, which hindered property acquisition.
- The racial ones are an American exception.
So basically back to 19th Century England? To be frank, I’d rather have Donald Trump as President than this blatant oligarchy and plutocracy you advocate.
[/QUOTE]
Back to that for which the Founding Fathers fought and died actually.
They had absolutely no time for the wider democracy. It was the essence of the — non-social — Revolution that it benefit the upper classes and that the lower classes should speak only when spoken to. Useful idiots like Paine were there to sell the thing to those who did fight and die ( since contrary to the above, most of the old wretches died in their beds, sometimes of extreme wealth ).
Again, nothing but bluster, now accompanied by a bit of spittle.
And the qualification of “ordinary islam” is pretty “no True Scotsman” fallacious.
It should be noted that the Sudanese woman sentenced to death for apostacy was not raised as a Muslim. But then, you would say, the Sudanese are not “ordinary Muslims”. Who are “ordinary Muslims”? The ones who agree with Ramira’s preferred version of Islam, I guess.
[FWIW, Obama seems to have had some Muslim education and practice as a child, after his mother’s remarriage. I don’t think that makes him a Muslim in practice, of course, but as for what it means to “ordinary Muslims” is another question.]
I would question your contention that this is “Islamic law” as opposed to the laws of Iran and Sudan, which have predominantly Muslim populations.
Abortions and same-sex marriages are legal in the United States, which has a predominantly Christian population. Does that mean that abortions and same-sex marriages are legal under Christian law?
If you’re going to say something is part of Islam, you’re going to need to cite the Quran not some secular law code.