The Qur`an contains a variety of legislative provisions and legal prohibitions scattered throughout its chapters (suwar) and verses (ayat). There are a number of rules for the interpretation of these provisions, such as the position of a given Ayah in the context of the Surah, which in turn is interpreted according to its place in the sequence of revelations, its reference to other revelations and its historical context in relation to certain conditions that existed at the time of the given revelation. These and other rules are known as interpretative science (ilm usul aI-fiqh). According to these rules, for example, it is appropriate to refer first to a particular provision and then to a general provision dealing with a particular situation. No general provision may be construed as contradicting a particular provision, and a specific rule replaces a general statement. However, a general provision is always interpreted in the broadest sense, while a specific provision is interpreted in the most restrictive way. Analogous reasoning is admissible as analogous claims, unless expressly prohibited. Simplicity and plain language are always preferred. Similarly, the clear spirit of some regulations cannot be altered by contradictory interpretations.
A policy-oriented interpretation within the limits of the rules of jurisprudence is permitted and is even recommended, as is the case with the doctrine of Ijtihad (progressive reasoning by analogy). For iOS users, to analyze your WhatsApp conversations, we need to collect the conversation(s) you export from WhatsApp and import to Mei. When you import a WhatsApp conversation into Mei, we upload that conversation to our database to enable analysis through our algorithm and save it for your future review. Mei only analyzes and collects conversations that you upload to the Mei app. On June 15, 1999, Mei hosted a meeting of Ming, Person D, and his accomplices Chris Huang, Zhou Li, and Nom Tin Chan. There, Mei introduced a profit-sharing agreement whereby he would distribute fake credit cards and the corresponding identification documents for each of them, and in return, everyone would use the cards to get money or goods that Mei could exchange for money in the illegal market. Anyone who could receive $12,000 or more would share the benefits of the program. In addition, Mei urged the crew to place their skimmers in restaurants and offered to pay $20 for each stolen credit card number. b.
Arbitration Rules. The Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and application of this dispute settlement provision. The arbitration will be initiated through the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). If the AAA is not available for arbitration, the parties choose an alternative arbitral tribunal. The rules of the arbitral tribunal shall govern all aspects of such arbitration, except to the extent that such rules conflict with these Terms. The AAA`s Consumer Arbitration Rules are available online at www.adr.org or by calling the AAA at 1-800-778-7879. Arbitration shall be conducted by a single neutral arbitrator. Any claim or dispute for which the total amount claimed is less than $10,000 may be resolved by binding arbitration based on the non-presentation at the option of the party seeking relief. For claims or disputes for which the total amount claimed is $10,000 or more, the right to be heard will be determined by the Arbitration Rules. Any judgment of the arbitrator on the award may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Mei reserves the right to update, modify, add or remove portions of the Privacy Policy at any time without notice. We encourage you to periodically review the Privacy Policy for any changes. The privacy policy will indicate the date of the last update and the most recent version will always be on www.textmei.com/legal/. If the revision is material in our sole discretion, we will use reasonable efforts to notify you by email, SMS, in-app update, on our website or in any other way we deem appropriate. By continuing to access or use the Services after such changes become effective, you agree to be bound by the revised Privacy Policy. On appeal, Mei argues that the District Court`s calculation of the loss was inappropriate and that one of the two alternative methods it proposed provides a more accurate and reasonable estimate of the loss. He argues that neither the sentencing guidelines nor the cases in which they are interpreted sanction the average methodology used by the District Court; whereas, even if an average method were to be applied in the present case, it would be too imprecise to make a reasonable estimate of the loss; and that, even if the method used by the District Court provided a reasonable estimate of the loss, the factual basis of its claim – the court`s finding that Mei intended to use the cards up to their credit limits – was manifestly erroneous. Mei`s claims, if true, would limit her prison sentence to 57 months. The determination of the amount of damages by the District Court is a question of fact that we verify for a clear error, although the application of the sentencing guidelines is a legal issue that we examine de novo. United States v.
Higgins, 270 F.3d 1070, 1074 (Cir.7, 2001). Mei pointed out that the estimate was based on a sample of only 16 percent of the cards used during the conspiracy, arguing that the government`s estimate of losses was too speculative. Instead, he urged the court to use one of the two most reasonable methods he claimed to be to calculate his loss. First, Mei suggested multiplying the average actual loss for each victim ($2,722.61) by the number of cards at risk (219). This calculation resulted in an estimated loss of $596,251.59. Alternatively, he suggested multiplying the average loss for cards in each category by the number of cards entered or used in each category, resulting in a slightly lower estimate of the loss of $555,191.79. The two alternatives would have Mei`s base attack level according to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(K) increased by ten. However, the district court rejected Mei`s proposals, noting that the government`s calculation more accurately reflected the loss because Mei “intended to find his victims for every penny he could mine with every card he had, in every way he knew.” The addition of the 12-step increase in his attack level set Mei`s political domain at 57-71 months.
The District Court imposed the maximum prison sentence allowed in the region. Muslim scholars view Islam not as an evolving religion, but as a religion and legal system that applies forever. It is therefore the application that is likely to evolve.