Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban

To be clear, there are over 124,000 prophets in Islam. To be perfectly clear, anyone can be a prophet following that condition. Muhammad never regards himself as a God, nor is he a religion, making your point baseless.

Using your definition, yes it is.

 

My claim that that Muhammad claims to speak the word of god. You agree with this claim. Address my argument now.

How does this:

Prove Islam cannot be both of these:

 

Yes, as all prophets do.

Broadly speaking, faith is the internal emotion. Religion is the external expression or observance, especially if it follows a specific structure.

And? By your definition, for it to be law, it would need to meet the conditions of needing to be within the sphere of all interpersonal interaction.

 

No. Once again, you are trying to give a new definition of religion instead of addressing my argument. Stop.

Address this:

Islam is faith and delusion.

Dude.

 

Wasn't a definition. I already covered that.

Muhammad is not Islam, Muhammad is not a religion. Are you dense?

 

Muhammad is the last and final messenger of the Islamic god who tells you what you must not do.

The book of Islam, which recites the words of the prophet of Islam, which supposedly come from the god of Islam, tells you what you must not do.

Address my claim:

Don't just bullshit around.

 

Doesn't make Muhammad a religion. Your argument surrounds around the notion that Religion can be law, and the definition you use, which isn't actually a definition, says that law must be within the confines of interpersonal communication.

There is a difference between religion and faith. Are you insinuating that Islam is faith and not religion? You can be religious and not have faith, and you can have faith and not be religious.

Goes right back to what I said.

 

The laws of Islam tell you what you must not do within the confines of interpersonal communication.

You aren't addressing my argument. You are trying to argue over the difference between religion and faith, which I am not interested in, because the definition of religion provided is "faith and delusion".

Stop saying "this goes back to" and actually address it.

ISLAM TELLS YOU WHAT YOU MUST NOT DO WITHIN THE CONFINES OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

 

Contradictory to what you refer to as Law. Laws are managed and enforced by people. If you're talking about Sharia/Islamic law, sure, although that's not a religion.

I need to understand it before addressing it, right? I have no idea what you're inferring by saying Islam is faith and delusion, being as faith and religion are two separate things, and Islam itself is a religion.

I did address it. It's contradictory to what you refer as Law, therefore it's not Law by your definition.

 

I've already told you: The people who enforce the laws of Islam are Muslims

I've already told you: Faith and delusions are things believed without proof

I provided the definition of law as that which tells you what you must not do within the confines of interpersonal communication.

Islam tells you what you must not do within the confines of interpersonal communication.

How is that contradictory? Address my claim lmao.

 

This law which you speak of is Sharia/Islamic law, not Islam itself.

Yes, however those aren't subject matters, nor does saying such have relevance to what you're trying to argue here.

Islam doesn't do so within the confines of interpersonal communication, Sharia/Islamic law does. To say Islam itself does that is contradictory to what your definition is. You can't differentiate the fact that religion and law are separate dealings using your definition. Muslims don't refer to Islam as law, they refer to Sharia, because Sharia is law, Islam is not, Islam is a religion. It doesn't get any simpler than that, and doesn't makes sense on your part to argue otherwise.

 

Yes, the law which I speak of (the commands of Muhammad) is Islamic law which was spoken by the final prophet of Islam.

Thank you for finally addressing my claim instead of throwing the dictionary at me again.

Islamic law is the law that is revealed by the prophet of Islam.

I never claimed religion and law are the same. YOU MADE THE CLAIM THEY WERE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, WHICH YOU MUST PROVE

You made the claim "They cannot be both".

You must prove your claim that a thing cannot be religion if it is law, and cannot be law if it is religion.

Since you have accepted that Islam is faith and delusion, you would have to prove that Islam does not tell you what not to do, which it does, as I have already quoted.

 

Since you agree with that, then it wouldn't be his commands. In fact, which "commands" do you speak of?

You missed something.

Technically, he clarified the existing law by interpreting the Koran and acting as a judge in legal cases, but yes, that would fall under interpersonal communication, which coincides with my argument.

I never said you did, in case you can't read, I said they're separate dealings, meaning they don't intertwine with your definition, it would be contradictory in that case.

Many religions rely on faith and are delusions, but like I said, that has no relevance to your argument.

"you would have to prove that Islam does not tell you what not to do"

Your argument will not grow stronger by repetition.

"Islam doesn't do so within the confines of interpersonal communication". I've already explained why at least 10 times already. You can't prove otherwise.

 

I already gave you an example of several

I'm not too fond of the consequences of not following Muhammad's commands either:

...

 

Who or what assesses these consequences?

Who or what assesses these consequences?

Can't read?

Sharia/Islamic law ^

Islam ^

 

Muslims.

I've already said to stop trying to make a semantics difference between "Islam" and "Islamic law".

Address the commands of Islam, I don't give a shit if you call it Islam or Islamic law. My argument doesn't depend on your definition.

 

So wouldn't this be within the confines of interpersonal communication? They assess these consequences through Sharia/Islamic law, not Islam.

I'm using "your" definition. You want me to stop using the context in "your" definition to prove "your" claim is contradictory?

The "commands of Islam" are addressed and enforced through parts of Sharia/Islamic law which would be assessed within the confines of interpersonal communication.

 

What? Evaluate them as they are written, not "as addressed and enforced through parts of Sharia/Islamic law which would be assessed within the confines of interpersonal communication".

That's just a bunch of shit you can tag on to argue about.

The commands of Islam are immoral, and in the context of the ban, the commands of Islam are in direct opposition to the constitution.

 

The laws which you speak of, the consequences which you speak of, are assessed through Sharia, not Islam. You see, because Sharia is law, and there are legal consequences assessed through Sharia, not through Islam. Let's say Sharia did not exist, how are consequences being assessed? You have to remember Sharia was introduced the same time Muhammad was significantly patent as a prophet.

 

Stop saying "Sharia" as if it is something distinct to what I am talking about.

Address the violent things that Muslims have been commanded by god to do to innocent people, including me.

Saying "Islamic Law is different than Islam!" does not keep me from being beheaded.