I try to be as objective as possible. Whether people like it or not, I just try to be helpful. I think it is morally objectionable to not inform people of where and why they are wrong while providing the correct information. I would be embarassed to know I was wrong about something. But you know what? I would be even more embarassed to be wrong about something for one more day. I get into conversations where people get very angry at me for my attempting to explain why karma isn't real. I'm not arguing with them in the colloquial sense. I am just trying to see what they believe and if their belief has a proper basis. If karma exists, then I want to know. Unforunately, this person could only state that I couldn't prove karma doesn't exist. They took exception to my comparision in the inability to prove that leprachuans didn't exist.
So, I'm neither the judge nor lawyer. I would be the law. Objective and subject to change if you can demonstrate that these changes are needed.
There are of course going to be muslims who are great people. I would even say that most muslims are good people who have been indoctrinated into believing or doing horrible things.
The article literally says responses are mixed based on location. Nowhere does it say ‘majority of Muslims in the world believe in sharia law.’ Yikes girl
That's exactly what it says. The results are always mixed, but that doesn't mean there isn't a strong correlation. In Afghanistan, 99% of the population says that they favor sharia law being the official law of their country. Just because 1% of them do not doesn't mean that 100% of them do not. Last I checked, 99% was a majority. And those numbers are repeated across all Islamic countries.
So, I'm neither the judge nor lawyer. I would be the law. Objective and subject to change if you can demonstrate that these changes are needed.
There are of course going to be muslims who are great people. I would even say that most muslims are good people who have been indoctrinated into believing or doing horrible things.