DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - The Islamic 'state' an oxymoron (contradiction in terms)

**lookanddiscover** · 09-04-2012, 03:56 AM

Shariah Law is like British Common Law...the key concept is that laws are discovered, they are not made as they are in Democracies.

There are no Victimless Crimes, under British Common Law and Shariah...this is not the case with Democratic Laws.

In modern Democracies you need highly specialized lawyers who use all kinds of funny language and weasel words in Contracts, because no one trusts each other, everyone wants to cheat everyone else. Most contracts are one sided and force the other party to sign it even though the powerful party may bring new conditions upon you later. See:

One Sided Contracts
http://c4ss.org/content/10713

In legal terminology, a contract of adhesion is any contract drafted entirely by one party in an unequal power relationship, which the other party is “free” to take or leave — but in practice really can’t afford to leave. Pretty much any “standard contract” or boilerplate used by an entire industry is a contract of adhesion.

Our relations with the powerful institutions that control our lives are largely governed by contracts of adhesion. Instead of individually negotiated contracts, whose terms we play a role in defining, we’re faced — in Searles’s words — with “contracts we never made,” that “one side built and the other side was required to accept.”
Shariah Law and British Common Law are superior to Democratic State Law making which is designed to control, while Shariah law is designed to facilitate freedom and ease, while minimizing any harm caused to others or oneself. It is human, Democratic Laws are inhuman.

09-04-2012, 03:56 AM	#8
lookanddiscover Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	Shariah Law is like British Common Law...the key concept is that laws are discovered, they are not made as they are in Democracies. There are no Victimless Crimes, under British Common Law and Shariah...this is not the case with Democratic Laws. In modern Democracies you need highly specialized lawyers who use all kinds of funny language and weasel words in Contracts, because no one trusts each other, everyone wants to cheat everyone else. Most contracts are one sided and force the other party to sign it even though the powerful party may bring new conditions upon you later. See: One Sided Contracts http://c4ss.org/content/10713 In legal terminology, a contract of adhesion is any contract drafted entirely by one party in an unequal power relationship, which the other party is “free” to take or leave — but in practice really can’t afford to leave. Pretty much any “standard contract” or boilerplate used by an entire industry is a contract of adhesion. Our relations with the powerful institutions that control our lives are largely governed by contracts of adhesion. Instead of individually negotiated contracts, whose terms we play a role in defining, we’re faced — in Searles’s words — with “contracts we never made,” that “one side built and the other side was required to accept.” Shariah Law and British Common Law are superior to Democratic State Law making which is designed to control, while Shariah law is designed to facilitate freedom and ease, while minimizing any harm caused to others or oneself. It is human, Democratic Laws are inhuman.
	Quote