Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban

Sharia, Islamic sharia or Islamic law is the basic Islamic legal system derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. To say it comes from Muhammad would be to say Muhammad is God himself, which he is not. He is a prophet, a messenger of the word of God, as were the other 300+ messengers described in the Quran.

To my knowledge, there is no country that refers to Sharia in it's entirety. The sharia code is significant in that it's principles are taken for legislative purposes, but not in full. For example, Turkey abolished capital punishment where as other Muslim countries have this intact.

To say that it's not possible to be Muslim and not follow Sharia would be false. To be muslim you would need to believe in the 5 pillars of Muslim and only that.

That's like saying you can't be Christian and support abortion.

Why would you follow Muslim law if you aren't Muslim? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Adhering to Islamic law isn't what makes someone Muslim, no. I already explained what makes someone a Muslim.

If you don't follow the 10 commandments, are you still Christian? The answer is yes.

There are obvious consequences as explained in the bible that comes of result from not abiding to those commandments, but it doesn't strip you of being a Christian.

To be Christian, you would need to accept that God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die in our place, so we could be spared from hell.

There are conditions in these religions that explain what makes you a true follower of it.

 

It's actualy not a minority, unless you claim that the muslims coming to Europe don't represent their native countries.


If muslims achieve majority at some point in time then having your hands cut off could become a reality. And this is a real possibility in 20+ years considering the low birth rate of europeans.

 

Yes. Muhammad was the only person who was exempt from his own commands. The federal gov't exempts itself from following their own laws or constitution either. The laws are universal to everyone but the lawmakers.

The fixed principle is that Muhammad is a prophet who speaks for god.

Islamic law is applied universally, to everyone except Muhammad.

 

None of the 300 other prophets you mentioned authored the Quran or Hadith. Muhammad's revelations are considered the final ones and outstrip the authority of all the others.

Traditionally, non-muslims follow Muslim law so Muslims won't crucify or behead them.

Slavery is immoral. That's objective, not an opinion.

 

I couldn't care less if 1 unicorn told it to another unicorn so please leave that sort of bs out, it's as if you don't want to be taken seriously.

The problem is that majority of muslims believe that sharia is the word of god and it must be followed word by word, the minority thinks it's man made and influenced by islam(making it less important I guess). The MAJORITY of muslims think that islam law is a part of islam. Are you saying that the majority of muslims are wrong and and don't understand islam? Or are both right? Or wtf honestly? To me your words seem like wishful thinking and the reality is a different story.

And even if the majority are wrong then this doesn't mean that they will not try to force it on everyone, because for them it's a MUST DO.

 

Allah knoweth.

 

A lot of what I see in this thread is a lot of individuals arguing over Islam whom do not practice it and make wide assumptions based off their own experiences or articles that likely line up with their own ideological perspective.

Islam has well over a billion followers, it is but a fraction of a percent whom believe in and participate in groups such as ISIS. Even so, ISIS has brought stability (alongside terror) to swathes of territory it controls. Iraq's infastructure has been decimated for over a decade and now ISIS is providing water and electricity to individuals. Living under ISIS and attempting to survive does not correlate to supporting such an organization.

Such a suggestion ignores the practicality of attempting to ban a religion from the U.S. How are you going to differentiate? Oh, lets make them take litmus tests! Outside of (what I would argue) unconstutionality of it, one can easily lie. This is just as dumb as "lets only allow christians!" Such suggestions are that of fear-mongering and are attempting to demonize a significant sect of a population due to the actions of a very, very, tiny minority.

Also, I can take quotes from nearly every holy book in an attempt to mis-represent the religion.

Seriously, so many of these posts that I glanced over just come off as so edgy, it's ridiculous. I understand this forum is dominated by people in a younger (13-16) age bracket; but if you're going to attempt to seriously argue such issues, at least do so with some knowledge not garnered on Wikipedia. You googling "evil koran verses" or "evil bible verses" and transcribing the information does not mean you understand it in the slight. Go take a class, or perhaps read an - educational - book and attempt to understand the likes of terrorism, theories on how it forms, and takes hold.

Lastly, the Internment Camps in the U.S. are a stain on U.S. history. If any justification for said ban relies on such a train of thought, it falls flat.

If it isn't already clear, I do not support said ban. It ostricizes an entire sect of the world population and attempts to blame a mass when its' only a small minority (hello Hitlerisque policy). Even if I did support it, unless something seriously occurs in the U.S. political system, this will not occur any time soon.

 

Firstly, you didn't answer whether believing in the boogeyman would be considered a religion. By your definition it would be, however it logically doesn't make sense. The plug of Sythe's comment doesn't support your argument either. He doesn't say what a religion is, only what a religion accepts.

The laws aren't universal, and need to be enforced by someone to actually consider it law, which some Muslim countries do.

The legal systems of Muslim countries are grouped into 3 classes.

1. Classical sharia systems - Where sharia plays a dominant role in the legal system
2. Secular systems - Where sharia plays no role in the legal system
3. Mixed systems - Where sharia is common, but plays no dominant role in the legal system

To say sharia is universal under these conditions is illogical. Turkey, Malaysia, and the United Arab Emirates are secular countries that do not conform to sharia, despite being Muslim. Then you have non-muslim countries which do not conform to sharia at all, but hold Muslim residents. You'd have to define "applied" because the definition of it is to put to practical use as opposed to being theoretical, which doesn't support what you're saying.

Okay.

Already disproved it being "applied" universally.

If Muhammad was the author of the Quran, which is questionable considering he could not read or write, why are there multiple verses which discredit his character?

The fact that the Quran, on various occasions, reprimands the Prophet in certain issues in which he had made in incorrect judgment is in itself a proof that it was not authored by him. How can he have the knowledge of all the science, astronomy, oceanography, etc that is contained in the Quran if he could not read or write?

Saying slavery is immoral is an opinion, learn the difference. Morality is not objective.

What are you referring to?

I'm getting this information by Muslim scholars of Islam, not random believers. There are many unbiblical statements that many Christians believe and follow, does it mean it's true? No.

Stop with the appeal to popularity, it's a weak fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

You need to proofread your comments. You're saying here that they don't try to enforce it on everyone.

I agree with this to an extent. Muslim scholars of Islam do practice, experience, and study Islam itself. I think they have the best perspective on this considering Islam itself is filled with contradictions.

 

I couldn't care less about the inner life of fictional characters. It matters just as much as me saying that Harry could speak to snakes. Let's keep this real, mkay?

The troubling thing is that majority of muslims believe that muslim law is islam. Yes, they believe you must follow the islam law to be a muslim. I don't care about what your scholars think or say when the majority of muslims are demanding to be judged by sharia in western countries. These muslims can become the majority voters in 20+ years. If 9/10 person wants to stone me to death then I couldn't care less what the 1/10 thought cause the odds are that I'd be stoned to death.

As I said, your words = wishful thinking that is supported by the minority of muslims and the reality is that majority of muslims believe that muslim law is islam. Who is right, I have no fucking clue, but I know that the majority will try to push for islam law in western countries and they will not give a flying fuck about what you or your scholars think. And if you don't see that as a problem then you are clearly more interested in mental gymnastics than staying real. Another reason why Trump is so popular is because people like you keep dancing around issues instead of actualy facing the reality.

I'll say it again(just incase you missed it): MOST MUSLIMS BELIEVE THAT MUSLIM LAW IS ISLAM. This majority is scary and I don't want it to become the voting majority. This is why a muslim ban would be perfectly fine by me. Lets keep sharia out of western countries!

 

Not sure what you're referencing, but okay.

Can you provide evidence that supports that for someone to be Muslim, they must believe and follow the law of Sharia?

In the research I was conducting, I could only find that for someone to be Muslim they must follow the 5 pillars of Islam and only that. I could be wrong.

Appeal to popularity. That's a logical fallacy. Just because more people are doing x, doesn't mean x is correct.

What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Uhm.. Okay?

Those are not my words, those are the words of those who study and practice Islam for a living. Stop with the majority argument, that's a logical fallacy.

Something being popular doesn't make it right.

What is your argument? You flipped from what makes someone Muslim to what Muslims are doing in the world which has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

I've said on this thread that Islam is the most errant religion and I don't support it, but that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

When did this become about Trump? Stick to the discussion at hand.

You went from what makes someone Muslim to Muslims pushing for sharia in other countries to why Donald Trump is popular to Muslims being scary.

Tell me, what does all of this have to do with the discussion at hand?

 

I'm no longer responding. I have better things to do than to argue with you that slavery is immoral.

 

I didn't argue that slavery isn't immoral, I argued that slavery being immoral is an opinion, not a fact, therefore it isn't an argument.

Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense

I rather not delve into this topic anyways.

 

Fuck off. You literally couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

 

I'm not going to get into this, however I believe morality is not objective in the sense that a subjective morality is more preferred over an objective one because by definition, it's what we humans want, and to suggest it's objective would mean we adhere to a 3rd party, which would be religion or an otherworldly system, but as many pointed out, including Richard, it's a delusion. Just food for thought.

This is a different topic for a different thread to which I do not care for personally, but one thing is for certain, what you claimed is an opinion, not fact. :laugh:

 

Please read the title of this discussion and come back to reality! We are talking about banning muslims out of whom the majority think that islam law is islam. The poll result I posted shows that majority of muslims think that sharia is the word of god and the minority thinks it's influenced by islam. How can you not understand that it makes no difference if sharia = islam when the majority of muslims think that it is. In the western world majority vote wins.


I'm not interested in your mental gymnastics. Just answere this. If the majority of muslims think that muslim law is a must have, then is that a valid point on why to ban muslims from entering western countries? Stay on topic and do your gymnastics elsewhere, thx.

 

The whole discussion between me and Xier0 to which you jumped in was not about the banning of Muslims, rather semantics of Muslim law upon various things. This is why I said "discussion at hand".

This is what you jumped in the discussion between me and Xier0 with. You're arguing that Islam is not simply a religion, but also law, to which I've already responded to.

You're not interested in something you jumped into and from there argued your position? Again, what you're asking me has nothing to do with what I'm arguing about, blatant red herring.

 

Religion and law are not mutually exclusive, you can't just keep saying this and expect to get away with it eventually.

Religion:

Law:

-Islam is faith and delusion

-Islam tells you what you must not do

These are not mutually exclusive, so your semantics arguments are just proving your idiocy.

 

One poll doesn't mean this is a broad phenomenon and among other things, you need to look at locations of polling and the individuals actually polled. Were these muslims older? younger? Only men? Men & women? Only women? How well are the demographics played out? Rural areas, cities? Your poll gives absolutetly zero data on this. It's like political polls only calling land lines for information on the (U.S.) presidential election. An overwhelming amount of people polled are older correlating to the fact that younger people more often than not do not have a land line.

17/23 countries polled in that pew poll had more than half, NONE of these countries are western. More tradtionally Islamic societies are certainly going to have a more traditional response.

You cannot take one poll and proceed to apply it to the entire Muslim populaton (of what, 1.3 billion?), it's moronic. Your poll doesn't prove anything and provides a little glimpse into the attitudes of some sect of muslims in some countries. It would take WAY more data to make the kind of logical jumps you are making.

 

Stop with the argument by repetition.

What are you arguing here? That religion is a delusion? Who is arguing otherwise? Religion being a delusion makes it law? Get a better argument.

Stop with the argument by repetition, I've already responded to this.

Richard is saying law has the POWER, meaning ability to tell you what you must not do of relating to relationships or communication between people. By saying this, he is not indicating or illustrating what law means, only it's capability, which doesn't support your argument in the slightest. If I excluded the last part of that sentence by Richard to which you seemingly do, parents, government, teachers, doctors would be considered law by your interpretation.

Islam being a faith and or a delusion makes it law? Religion doesn't have to be a delusion to make it law, there is no correlation in this.

Get a better argument.

 

No. YOUR CLAIM WAS THAT RELIGION AND LAW ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

YOU MUST PROVE THIS CLAIM.

Otherwise, we aren't having a discussion, you are just talking to your imagination, where your claims don't have to have any sort of proof attached to them.

You make a constant habit of making claims without proof, such as your claim that I was biased, such as your claimed that I seemed racist, such as your claim that I can't relate to black people, such as your claim that morality is subjective.

You have no proof. You just want to delay being wrong right now until the next post, you don't care how stupid you look later when someone demands that you prove your claims. If you bluff enough times, you might win eventually, right?

You won't bluff your way out of your claims if someone holds you to a rational standard, which I will. Get over it, and respond to the arguments.