Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban

You're confusing religion with ideology and vise versa. Although these are similar in concept, they are structurally different in execution. Ideology is fixated around the basis of an economic or political theory, something religion does not do. Religion is fixated on the theory of divinity, something an ideology does not do.

 

Any belief without proof is religion. It doesn't require deities.

 

Depending on your definition of religion. I'm going with the oxford definition which requires the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power or God(s).

 

Fine, use your definition of you want, but that doesn't somehow mutually exclude Islam as a system of law & political ideology just because someone thinks the murderer was made of magic.

 

I don't get why you're going in circles after I refuted that theory.

If your argument is that Islam is law because it tells you what to do and what not to do, then all monotheistic religions are law, and any religion that does such is also law, which would be false.

Going to reiterate this again, Islamic law is influenced by Islam, does that mean Islam is law? No. Laws in the US are influenced by Christianity, does that mean Christianity is law? No. Law is a manifestation of ideas that is enforced by the imposition of penalties. If I create a book with a list of rules to follow with punishments and no one recognizes it as something to enforce with penalties being established, it's not law. All laws are influences of something.

This is a simple understanding.

 

All you've done is put forth a special definition to provide an arbitrary exception to "ideology" for people who believe in deities. It's not objective in any sense.

Islam is not the only law system that people believe that people believe to be divine. The divine right of Christian European kings is another example of this. I never made the argument that others didn't exist. You are making a false dichotomy. Also, why stop at monotheistic?

Islamic law is the law that comes from the Islamic prophet, who issues commands for the Islamic god. That's why it's called "Islamic Law". Don't use the ambiguous modifier "influenced by", because you are trying to make a new term for no reason.

Do you get executed for working on the Sabbath in the US? Are speed limit laws influenced by Christianity? This isn't an argument. Christian law is an entirely separate thing.

 

It's not arbitrary. For you to be right, there would have to be no difference between an ideology and religion, and that simply isn't true. There are only similar in practice, not execution.

Obviously.

Never said you did.

Actually I'm not, I'm trying to show resemblance/similarity, which wouldn't be dichotomy.

Did you purposely not read that part?

The Quran sets down basic standards of human conduct, but does not provide a detailed law code. Only a few verses deal with legal matters, as does all monotheistic religions.

http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-origins-of-islamic-law.html

Ignorance is not bliss. Please look up the definition of influence, and tell me where and how Islamic Law was originated, oh and don't worry, I gave you a link for that.

No and no. What I'm saying is, Christianity has a lot of influence on laws in the US, as does Islam on Islamic governments. You have to remember, Islam is named within their government and law because of it's high reverence, but at the end of the day, it's an influence, not directly law, and not everything said in the Quran is followed by each and every Islamic government. If you're trying to contrast the unruliness of both, I'd agree, I've already said Islam is the most errant religion, but that doesn't mean it's law, something which I've proved continuously in this thread.

To reiterate:

Source

The very foundation of the US and it's laws revolve around Christianity.

 

You directly did. You used this as evidence to prove that Islam is not law:

There's no proof of falsity there. The statement "then all religions would be law" is completely non sequitur to whether or not Islam is a system of law, which I already have proven it is:

Wrong. You said "Which would be false" -- You aren't showing a similarity, you are using a resemblance/similarity to make a true or false statement.

I saw it, but how is the number of gods in any way an appropriate tag to bring up here? Why suddenly bring up the distinction between monotheistic and multi-deity religions for any reason whatsoever? Throwing in words like monotheistic is just space filler to try to throw me off the actual claims you make, which are absolutely non-sequitur nonsense once I redact the filler:

You are contradicting yourself. How does it deal with legal matters? A law code. You are trying to create ambiguity where there is none.

You are kidding right? Your source just repeated my post, word for word. It directly supports my previous definition.

________________________

Ready to get BTFO by an extremist website?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6761840.html

I've proven it's law. To reiterate: The definition of law - and the condition that satisfies Islam being law: I'll post them again for you:

 

Where did I say that?

Let's go through what I said because you never seem to understand what I mean, even though it's evidently clear.

I was making the argument that if you consider Islam to be law, then all monotheistic religions (major religions), and any other religion alike would be considered law, then followed up by saying this is false, which it is, and gave supportive evidence of such.

Wrong again. I said all monotheistic religions, and any other religion ALIKE (in practice of issuing rights and wrongs) being LAW would be FALSE. Look throughout this thread and quote me on one difference I gave between religions, because I'm 100% sure I gave similarities, as I believe monotheistic religions, major in specific, are two sides of the same coin, they're not much different at all.

I don't get why you're focused on why I labeled Islam as being a monotheistic religion, being as it is, however in that particular instance you're referring to it's about religions that involve the practice of telling you what's right and what's wrong. I said monotheistic because that's what Islam is, and I've repeatedly compared all monotheistic religions to show the similarity in influence and practice. So you calling me out for making a false "dichotomy" is comical.

Is there a reason why you're removing words from my quotes? Oh right, you're taking out the context to try and support your argument.

What I said verbatim:

It was taken from the source I gave you, but I doubt you read it. I'll post it here:

It's saying Sharia/Islamic Law which is influenced by Islam, took the interpreted verses by Muhammed to help clarify the exiting law that resided in Arabia pre-Islamic Law, thus it's creation. The verses in the Koran deal with legal matters because Islamic Law manifested it's ideas.

It's funny because the way you describe it shows that Islamic law is an influence of the Koran, which it is. Again, you're suggesting that Sharia (a law) took/comes from the book of Islam, which you consider to be law itself, which it is not.

Definition of influence - The capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself

The quote you give by Sythe is interesting since you have no idea of the context in which you underline specific words, but continue to ride the comment.

For instance:

He says law has the "power" meaning the ability to tell you what you must not do, which is true. Religion has no power unless it's being enforced by a second party that can assess these punishments, thus the creation of law.

That is a quote by John Adams, which contradicts his views on religion being the base of development in America.

Another quote by John Adams: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

Ha, try removing faith practices in schools altogether and see the outrage and unbalance.

Here's a nice quote from the source I gave.

You could probably find a few contradictory statement from the founding fathers, especially ones that go against their course of action. This doesn't make them right or wrong, but we follow what they say.

I've already responded to you riding on the Sythe quote, it's funny how you badly misinterpret what he's saying.

 

I'll quote it for you again:

Yes.

Yes.

^No. That isn't evidence. That's an appeal to popularity fallacy.

So don't complicate your argument by using the term.

It doesn't provide any sort of distinction, because number of deities means nothing to the discussion. I pointed out that you threw the word in needlessly.

"All monotheistic religions"? I'm not going to make you respond "Well, not ALL...". Be more careful with your wording, because being inclusive actually means something.

I'm not removing anything, the premises and claims are still there. I am shortening them to take out all of the incoherent, off topic, non-argument nonsense that surround your premises and claims. Your arguments are judged on your premises and claims, not "context".

So, the law code just isn't "detailed" then? Sure, I'll agree that the Quran's law code isn't nearly as wordy as your average congress bill.

It said that Sharia Law IS ISLAMIC LAW, not INFLUENCED by it. I'll quote your source, since I doubt you read it.

Yeah. Sharia comes from the Quran, which comes from Muhammad, which supposedly comes from Allah. Once again, your own source:

Right, which is why you can't allow Muslims to enforce them, hence, the wall.

I accept your admission of contradictions.

 

Did I say that was the evidence in particular? No. How would prove that Islam isn't law?

First you look at the definition of law.

Which it : 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.

Then you use logic and common sense to put together that the book of Islam can't regulate itself to enforce the imposition of penalties.

Want to refute that? Go ahead.

Didn't complicate it at all.

It doesn't? I mean believing in more than one God seems to be quite the distinction from believing in one, and all major religions are monotheistic, so labeling it as such for context when comparing all 3 is for clarity, since you seem to be struggling to understand what I'm saying here.

Are all monotheistic religions all the same? No. For me to highlight all would be for emphasis sake to support my argument.

Removing words from my quote is removing something. By removing words, you take out the context. Judged on my premise and claims? I use(d) sources.

Again, you're leaving out the context. In the source I gave that highlights that statement in specific, it talks about the development of Sharia, in which revolves around the interpretation of Islam by the prophet Muhammed to clarify the existing law of Arabia. When it mentions the legality of Islam, it does so post-Muhammed.

Again for clarity:

This logically doesn't make sense. It doesn't say "IS", it says "comes from". If I site a source, that's something that involves influence, something Islamic Law does.

Key prhase here: Comes from

Tell me where it says, Islamic Law/Sharia is Islam.

I don't get how it got to this point in the discussion, but that's another matter that I never referenced.

 

Got it. Here it is:

Muslims (followers of Muhammad) enforce the penalties. Books don't behead people.

Done.

Divine law is divine law whether or not it comes from 1 god or 10 gods. Any distinction does not apply whatsoever in this argument.

Right, because I'm responding to your premises and claims, not your "context".

It's objectively immoral. Why would I give a shit about Muhammad's position as a judge of an immoral court, which operates using his commands as laws?

No. It says "Sharia refers to traditional Islamic law". It doesn't say "Sharia comes from traditional Islamic law".

Islam is the ideology. Islamic law is the commands ordered by the prophet of Islam, aka, Sharia.

 

The interpretation is subjective, all Muslim countries under parts of Sharia/Islamic Law do not apply the same "law" you claim to be, which is Islam, on it's people. View Turkey for example, which abolished capital punishment, e.g., stoning to death. Law is absolute. If all Muslims don't accept this, it's not absolute.

Religion is arbitrary, which Islam is.

Meaning the book must have it's ideas manifested to create law, it can't be law itself. Not sure how many times I have to repeat this.

You didn't refute anything.

You're moving goalposts. When was "Divine law" ever brought up in this discussion and what does it refer to?

So you agree to removing my words in an attempt to excuse the context in which supports my premise? Okay, this comment now doesn't make sense.

Because it has to do with the development of Sharia/Islamic law.

Really? I think you're neglecting what's being said to support your argument. This is what I see:

Islam can't be a religion and an ideology, that's a paradox, you'd have to disprove one or the other. You still haven't disproved Islam to being a religion.

 

Textbook appeal to popularity fallacy.

Yeah, I know. I don't want to be arbitrarily beheaded.

I'll repeat again, Muslims enforce Islamic law.

Yes I did. I proved that Islam was a law code (must not and musts). You keep saying it's not a law code, because Christianity, which isn't an argument.

This:

Strawman again. I already said I left your premises and conclusions, and removed all the off topic/non-argument filler, such as pasting from dictionary sites.

Yes it does. You posted my claim already - which was "I'm responding to your premises and claims". You could have deleted everything else, because it's all just reasoning and extra words. My argument is right there.

I'm already aware that Muhammad's laws are the ones in the Quran.

Yeah. Sharia is god's law. It comes from Muhammad, because Muhammad supposedly spoke to god. How is this ambiguous?

False dichotomy. I already proved it was an ideology, because it applies law to others, in the form of musts and must nots. If there's someone believes that Muhammad was magic, it doesn't somehow make not an ideology anymore.

 

How so?

Definition of absolute - a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

If it's not universally valid or accepted by Muslim countries and residents that follow parts of Islamic Law/Sharia and believe in Islam, then it's not absolute.

Because Islamic law is.. LAW! To which is influenced by Islam.

You're suggesting because a few verses deals with legal matters to which Muhammed created by interpretation, Islam is a law code. Show me the complete system of codes within Islam. I highlighted Christianity because it has the 10 commandments, some which are universally accepted as crime, but that doesn't mean it's law, to which I've explained 5 times already why that is the case.

It's clear you don't even read your own posts because this has nothing to do with "Divine Law". You mentioned divinity in beliefs, nothing about laws being divine.

Where is the strawman? Do you say strawman as a reflex, because most of the time you say it, it isn't so.

You said you didn't remove anything (your own words). You consider context as off topic/filter? That source wasn't from a "dictionary site" either.

No, your claim was, "I didn't remove anything". Which is obviously false, since you redacted my own words that supported my argument.

Where are his laws? To my belief, he just helped clarify the existing law by interpreting provisions from Islam.

Can you read the second sentence for me? It seems that you're having trouble pointing it out.

Oh, the hypocrisy, you already acknowledged Islam as a religion as seen here:

You also said:

This is a claim, to which you've yet to support. First Islam is an ideology, then it's not a religion, then it's law. I'm trying to keep up with what you consider Islam to be because next you may consider it to be a lamppost.

 

It's an appeal to popularity because you are defining something by it's followers instead of its content.

Drop the influenced by.

What? That's not my claim. I quoted directly from the Quran to prove that Muslims have been commanded by god to fight people who don't follow the commands of Muhammad, which is STRICTLY your definition of law.

Here's a sample.

"The Sharia comes from the Koran, the sacred book of Islam, which Muslims consider the actual word of God"

And? It says they consider the Quran the law of god. That's my claim.

And? Religion and ideology are not mutually exclusive. You can worship a murderer, as I already mentioned.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. It is foolish to consider it a religion, when it is a manifestation of ideas that is enforced by the imposition of penalties.

 

For the 3rd time, let me repeat to you what absolute means.

"a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things."

How does one measure the value of absoluteness withstanding of people following or opposing law? It's not possible.

It's funny you say it's an appeal to popularity when I'm asserting the opposite.

Why? What is the difference between "comes from" and "influence"?

You say it's "strictly" my definition, but again, choose to oversight on the word "manifest". Can words manifest themselves?

Two sides of the same coin. Almost all, if not all religions establish dominance with consequences.

How is this law?

Again, what is the difference between "comes from" and "influence".

You're arguing that there is no influence.

What does worshiping a murderer have to do with ideology? They are exclusive.

You don't understand what manifest means buddy. Text can't manifest itself.

Religion isn't ideology, ideology isn't law, and law isn't religion.

 

Just read the first line, where you mention, 'less than 20% of Muslims support ISIS', it's actually closer to 0.03%.

 

This is a better source.

 

It's literally textbook appeal to popularity. I'm not responding to your fallacy, because there's nothing to respond to.

It doesn't come from or influence. You are trying to needlessly create a new term that is influenced, or comes from the same exact term. Stop trying to argue over semantics, and address arguments instead.

No, they are manifested by Muslims, who enforce the penalties. I've posted a video of some of said Muslims enforcing one of those penalties here:

I know. Ideas enforced by penalties remember? You are showing that it is your definition of law.

It came from god, supposedly, and it is a claim of what you must not do.

Doesn't matter, not applicable, semantics argument.

Doesn't matter, not applicable, semantics argument.

So is a tree green, or is it a plant? Pick one, they are exclusive.

I understand what it means, you just have just ignored my claim again, which is that it's manifested by Muslims. I keep pointing out to you that these beheading aren't done by books, they are done by Muslims. A book didn't fly into the World Trade Center.

So is National Socialism an ideology, or is it a system of law? Is a theocracy a religion, or is it a system of law? Is Scientology an ideology or a religion?

You are making a false dichotomy by saying that if it is one, it cannot be another. Trees can be both green, and plants. It's not like it MUST be green, or it MUST be a plant, and can't be both.