Abolish religions already
Can the “federal government” not step in and end this whole sharia thing in this province?
in fact aceh wants to separate from indonesia. but the 2004 tsunami ruined the movement and they have to rely on the central government and foreign help to fix things. they were later given autonomus privilege from the central government, which is why aceh can have rather special laws compared to the rest of the country.
They like it. Because they’re *******.
Whoah, what the fuck. Do you live in a Joseph Conrad novel??
Do you regularly lash women?
People downvoting me approve of this:
The couple was among six people flogged for breaking the Islamic code, including a sharia police officer and his female partner, who were caught in close proximity in a private place. That couple received 23 strikes each.
What the hell does this mean? Some guy was “in close proximity” with his wife in private?
police officer and his female partner
I’m betting the correct interpretation of this phrase is that the female is his POLICE partner, not romantic.
Just a guess… but that they’re not actually married.
edit: yeah, they weren’t actually married. also they drank booze.
After?!
I can’t imagine lasting half of that.Well, depends on how… well… “motivated” the person who swings the cane is…
The rattan is soaked in water before they use it, so even the most limp-wristed excuse for a swing would still hurt like shit.
they’re not being kinky about it, if that’s what you’re saying.
Thats not how sharia law works. They use it as a reason when its not.
Its clearly how it works in practice.
It‘s what happens when any religious text is beholden to interpretation.
Its what happens when any religious text ~~is beholden to interpretation. ~~
No true Scottsman, he?
No. That logical fallacy is completely misunderstood and posted everywhere. It only occurs when you continue to shift the goalposts. If someone makes a claim and defends it continuously, then the fallacy does not occur.
“No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition.[1][2][3] Rather than admitting error or providing evidence to disprove the counterexample, the original claim is changed by using a non-substantive modifier such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, “real”, or other similar terms.[4][2]”
