Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban

Because you're wrong, as you've been many times when asserting what is a fallacy and what is a claim. It seems you're having trouble identifying which is which.

Go to any source you can find and tell me where it says Islamic law comes or derives from. It will tell you it comes from Islam. The source I cited, and where you pulled information out of to support your argument says "comes from" verbatim. Why don't you want to argue over semantics of what "comes from" means? You want to include an arbitrary meaning to it that isn't true?

Words are manifested by Muslims? What? People manifest words. The words/text that is scriptures are manifested by PEOPLE to make them a reality.

Again, leaving out manifest.

You said:

Clear contradiction. You cited that as "Muhammad's laws", prior to that you cited it as God's. I don't think you know what a prophet is, or rather the role of one.

This whole discussion is over semantics, and now you're arguing that it isn't? Stop with the deflection. What is the difference between "comes from" and "influence"? There is no difference.

Deflection again. You're arguing there is no influence, which logically doesn't make sense.

Moving goalposts, for the 100th time. What does worshiping a murderer have to do with ideology?

PEOPLE! PEOPLE MANIFEST WORDS, NOT MUSLIMS! MUSLIMS MANIFESTED THE WORDS WITHIN THE BOOK OF ISLAM TO CREATE SHARIA/ISLAMIC LAW! If you agree with this, then you agree that Sharia/Islamic law is an influence from the book of Islam.

National Socialism is an ideology. Theocracy is a government, neither religion or a system of laws. Scientology is a religion.

1. Strawman again. I never said "if it's one thing, it cannot be another."

2. A religion can't be an ideology because they are different (not the same). Religion consists in the branch of knowledge that deals with methodology of worship and the praise of God. An ideology deals with the system of ideas at the basis of an economic or political theory.

www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-religion-and-vs-ideology/

 

Muhammad.

Which is the term for the ideology of Muhammad's "revelations". People who believe Muhammad was a prophet/divine are followers of Muhammad (Muslims).

That's what I said. Those people are Muslims. Here are some Muslims making it a reality:

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU READ BELOW

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU READ ABOVE I HAVEN'T CONTRADICTED SHIT.

Muslims are people.

Muslims are influenced by the Quran, Muslims don't influence the Quran. The Quran is a book, it can't be influenced. It would be circular reasoning to say the Muslims influence the Quran, and the Quran influences the Muslims.

 

I said tell me where.

Not sure if you're being serious.

1. A prophet isn't a divine being, it's a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.

2. There are 72 prophets in the bible, none of which are divine, or are regarded as being divine.

3. Islam existed before Muhammed.

Wrong again.

To which you said:

I didn't say or mention the text of islam, simply words, any words.

How so?

Read carefully.

To which you said:

Contradiction - a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.

Just because you said it came from Muhammad it one comment, doesn't exempt what you said here. This is the basis of what a contradiction is.

Read above.

Why do you constantly twist words?

1. I never said Muslims influence the Quran. Strawman #1

2. I said words, not book. Strawman #2

3. I never reasoned, said, or hinted that Muslims influenced the Quran and the Quran influenced muslims. Strawman #3

What I said:

#1 Muslims manifested the words in the book of Islam to create Sharia/Islamic law.

#2 If you agree with #1, then you also agree with Sharia/Islamic law being an influence of Islam.

The quote is literally above this proving so.

I wonder what you're going to twist next.

 

Ghast must have a Ph.D. in mental gymnastics, because the amount of bs coming from him is unreal.

No need to make things so complicated. Just look at the muslims in Europe who are fighting for sharia law. If islam was just a religion then there would not be so many followers who want to disregard the local laws and set up new ones for themselves. There clearly is some link between islam and the rule of law muslims aim for. Ghast, you may type what ever you want, but the muslims will still want to be judged by islam law and this seems to be uniq to islam. I'm going to put my money on islam being a religion + a set of laws. Atleast a lot of muslims seem to think so.

 

Islam and Sharia Law are not the same thing. Islam is a religion, Sharia is law. There is a link, Sharia/Islamic law is based on the book of Islam and it's teachings, an influence. This is what Xier0 is arguing against.

There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws that can be called Sharia. It is more like a system of several laws, based on the Qur'an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.

 

My definition doesn't depend on it being "strict" or "detailed". You keep saying "It's not a strict code of law" and "It's not a detailed code of law". My claim is that it is a code of law. I don't care about your adjectives you add to it.

 

This is again, a minority. Islam teaches us that we must obey the law of the land we reside in as long as it does not contradict the laws of islam. Which none of them do (here in the UK, can't speak for other places).

I have heard the topic of people bringing Sharia Law to the UK - and this is for civil cases such as divorce proceedings and debts for muslims only.
They are not trying to enforce it upon the non-muslim nation. As muslims, it is important for us to carry out these proceedings in line with our religion. I'll give you an example, usury is forbidden for us so a Muslim-led financial institution must lend by the way of Sharia.

I hardly think any western country is going to pass laws for cutting off hands of thieves etc anytime soon, even though their politicians have committed even more barbaric offences. (yes, that is in the Sharia that thieves get their hands cut off).

I mean, if they can deal with their civil proceedings in a fair and just way, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's not the same proceedings and outcomes as the normal laws on UK divorces/debt but there isn't much difference at all. It's just done in a way that's islamically acceptable.

When you talk about Sharia Law it's not the barbaric nonsense you hear about in the news, just like our own laws only a small part are "punishments" for criminal acts. The Sharia is a whole way of life as mentioned before: finance, social conduct,

 

Arabia, circa CE 600.

No it didn't. Muhammad is the prophet of Islam.

Sharia law is the laws of Islam.

 

If you're going to jump into a conversation that does not involve you, at least read it carefully before responding to it.

I was talking about Sharia, neither was I arguing about what you said. This is why the comment was in a reply to Karilrais, not you.

First you say Islam is an ideology, which would contradict it being law, then you even argued it wasn't religion, which was quickly disproved. Which is it?

Again, I said tell me where it says Sharia/Islamic law comes from.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Islam-exist-before-Muhammad

https://haveyoumetislam.wordpress.c...eve-that-islam-began-before-prophet-muhammad/

Wrong again.

Islam has an influence on Sharia, however it's not a coded copy of Islam.

 

They aren't mutually exclusive. It doesn't have to be just one. A tree can be both green and a plant.

Muhammad was the one who supposedly spoke the law of god, so it comes from Muhammad's mouth.

You don't get to substitute your own definitions for the definitions I provided prior to making my argument. That's not how debates work. You address the argument, you don't make a new definition for the words they used in order to make their argument wrong.

 

They are exclusive in this instance. Ideology can't be law, religion can't be ideology, and law can't be religion.

If you disagree, prove it isn't so.

So you're saying Sharia/Islamic law came from Muhammad and not Islam because he spoke the word of God? That makes no sense. Muhammad isn't the only prophet in Islam. There are more than 120,000 Islamic prophets, and only 313 of those are messengers.

This:

Is not a definition, it's a fact.

 

The burden of proof is on you.

Muhammad is the prophet of Islam, so I don't know why are are trying to say "Well, did it come from Muhammad, or did it come from Islam?"

He is the final prophet, it doesn't matter if there are more, because his revelations outweigh the previous prophets that Muhammad adopted as predecessors.

My argument is that the commands of Muhammad are immoral. I don't care about where you decide the origins of Muhammad's commands are, because that doesn't address the morality of Muhammad's commands.

 

I already proved it.

Ideology - a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Law - the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

Religion - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

Not the same thing and can't be the same thing.

Adam is the prophet of Islam, Nuh is the prophet of Islam, Salih is the prophet of Islam, Shuaib is the prophet of Islam, the list goes on. I asked where did Sharia/Islamic law come from, and you said Muhammed, to which you later explained because he is the one who supposedly spoke the law of god, so it comes from Muhammad's mouth, which doesn't make sense, as I've already explained.

Doesn't matter the order, Islam existed before him, so your argument lacks rationale. You even went on to say that Islam did not exist before Muhammad, which is obviously false.

Where the hell did that argument came from? I never argued with or against Muhammad or his ideals being immoral.

 

My argument, my definitions. Not your definitions.

My argument, my definition of Islam. Address my argument, don't make up new rules so it can be wrong by your new definition.

Did Mormonism exist before Joseph Smith? No. Muhammad is the prophet of Islam. He claims predecessors, but predecessors don't get to choose whether or not other people claim that they spoke to the same god as them.

That was my argument that I presented to you initially: Here it is: Ready?

Islam tells you what you must not do, and what you must do
Laws tell you what you must not do
Therefore, Islam is a legal ideology
The legal commands of Mohammad are immoral

 

You sound like a child, and what? You want me to provide evidence using your definitions? That doesn't make sense. Ever heard of a counterargument?

You said the burden was on me to prove that those 3 things are exclusive to one another, I did.

You can't disprove those facts.

I didn't provide a definition that proved Islam existed before Muhammad, I provided documented evidence.

But.. I just said.. There were... more than 120,000 prophets sent by Allah...

With... Proof

Stop with the argument by repetition.

The Quran claims that Muhammad is the seal or the last of the prophets:

He is no different than the other messengers in the Quran.

You never said this or argued this, this whole time. Can you pull this up, verbatim?

Hardcore red herring going on here.

 

Here is how a debate works. First, each side defines the terms that they are going to use in their argument that are central to their claim - for example, the term Muslim, the term Islam, etc.

The reason we use definitions is to make our sentences incredibly shorter and simpler. We store the full definition we provide in the word, so the person receiving the argument knows what we are referring to by the terms "Muslim" and "Islam", etc.

So, when I define Islam as the things Muhammad claimed to be revealed from god (that he was a prophet, standards for slaves, standards forbidding foods, standards requiring worship, and so on) - that is what I'm referring to, and that is how you must respond to my argument. You keep taking the equation I am giving you, erasing all the x = 4 variables and replacing them with x = 8, then saying my answer is wrong.

So, I define Islam, then you say that it is false that it can be an ideology, law system/code, and religion. Religion I already defined as things people believe without proof. Law is something that tells you what you must not do, and is applied universally. Ideology is the ideas that arise from a fixed principle.

 

You typed a whole lot of nothingness. What you're replying to is a rhetorical question. I rebutted your definition, gave an appropriate one, and supported it by detailing why it is so. I gave multiple sources, one of which specifically pointing out the differences you're conflicting about.

I'm not going to go off topic in this thread. If you're going to reply to anything on topic, do so, otherwise there is no point in discussing this.

 

I'm not going to respond to you if you aren't willing to have a rational debate. You can't get mad and make up your own rules every time I post.

Here are my definitions.

Here is my argument.

In addition to that, claiming that someone MUST do something under threat of physical harm is involuntary servitude (slavery).


Address this. Don't post slander.

 

You have the habit of changing the subject. You didn't respond to anything that was on topic either.

That sounds more like a fairy tale. Religion has to do with the belief and worship of a supernatural being. If people believe in the boogeyman, is that a religion?

So is Sharia/Islamic law applied universally? Are US federally laws applied universally?

Remember, universal meaning everyone.

What is this central basis of this concept?

Okay.

Okay, however that doesn't coincide with your definition of law, which conditions it must be applied universally.

If laws are universally applied, then Islam is not law by your definition.

Not an argument, this is an opinion, learn the difference.

 

I believe that the problem is that you can't call yourself a muslim without following the islam law.

Answer these:
Is it possible to be a muslim and not follow the muslim law?
Can you follow the muslim law and not be considered a muslim?
Is adhering to the muslim law what makes that person muslim?

My understanding is that if you say you are a muslim then you must follow the word of muhhamad aka the muslim law. But I'm not sure if you can follow the muslim law and say you are not a muslim. If you can't then for me that means muslim law = islam.