Allah as Law: The Law!

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

This post is addressed to The Cat

Why is the poster honoring you for being a Muslim? I am really confused here.

You're not the only one.

[The Cat]

This post is addressed to The Cat

Why is the poster honoring you for being a Muslim? I am really confused here.

You're not the only one.

Anthony de Mello:

"I wish to become a teacher of the Truth." ---"Are you prepared to be ridiculed, ignored and starving till you are forty-five?"
"I am. But tell me: What will happen after I am forty-five?" ---"You will have grown accustomed to it."


Nobody can be said to have attained the pinnacle of Truth
until a thousand sincere people have denounced him for blasphemy.


The master enjoined not austerity, but moderation. If we truly enjoyed things, he claimed,
we would be spontaneously moderate. Asked why he was so opposed to ascetical practices,
he replied, "Because they produce pleasure-haters who always become people-haters — rigid and cruel."


As the Arabs say, "The nature of rain is the same, but it makes thorns grow in the marshes and flowers in the gardens.''

[The Cat]

Even granting your interpretation is correct.... it's only correct for the Latin meaning. Things have changed quite a bit since the days of togas and Europe-wide Celts. Where, for instance, is the "secular" aspect that I keep bringing up? Nowhere in Rome, because state and religion were one; blasphemy or heresy was the same thing as sedition

An etymological definition is not my interpretation. For the Romans the emperor was the embodiment of the gods so his laws and that of the
empire were both secular and religious. Same is going still in England in its caesaropapism, so we also do have secular priests...

In Latin Saeculum refers to length of time, being opposed to what is timeless, eternal...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular
Secular implies the whole Cosmic Order of the Natural Laws as opposed to the afterlife!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cosmos

Of course all people grant laws legitimacy.... BUT the legitimacy is NOT based upon who does/does not uphold them.

As per the law: no one is to take justice into his own hands (jungle rule), for that goes against the common good. See?

So what are these natural laws? Specific examples, in the Quran, please- not just platitudes or claims.

And what is the "likeness of Abraham"? Where do Muslims get this? And so- again, we come to the crux of the matter. You're talking cosmic. You're talking RELIGIOUS. Or at least metaphysical. WHERE IN ANY MODERN CONSTITUTION (not counting preambles, which are the stating of general principles, and not laws) IS THERE CONSIDERATION OF BEING RIGHT WITH A COSMIC ORDER?

We seen above how the Cosmic Order is rather secular than religious, based on length of time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.....

Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

The binding order of nature is thus embedded in the Vedas' Rta/Dharma, the Koranic deen AND... the US founding documents!

Now, about the Islamic Deen/SLM & Muslim, equaling the Hindu concepts of Rta/Dharma:
viewtopic.php?p=131600#p131600

As per the Koran itself, I've asked to read Surah 57. You must understand it as similitudes of that Cosmic Order. I hope you can...

And so for the 'likeness of Abraham' or Millata, I have already discuss the matter herein:
viewtopic.php?p=131945#p131945

So like I've stated in the opening post: The West is basically an enemy to Islam because it has different laws, ie. different values.
It wants freedom, while that can't be under The Law. To a Muslim, our notion of freedom is a dead-end... met by fate.

That's why we MUST be knowledgeable in what is The Law according to the Koran, for only then can we construct a valid case.

Until we know what we're facing, ie A System of Laws, we're disputing shadows

[crazymonkie_]

An etymological definition is not my interpretation. For the Romans the emperor was the embodiment of the gods so his laws and that of the
empire were both secular and religious. Same is going still in England in its caesaropapism, so we also do have secular priests...

Oy.

I went over this. You're using the ancient concepts in the definitions. "Nice" in English used to mean "piddling, little, obsessively focused on details". Does it mean that now? Nope. How much more so would a word like "religious"- especially since the evolution of the term "secular"

In Latin Saeculum refers to length of time, being opposed to what is timeless, eternal...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular

It also evolved to mean something else. Go ahead and ask someone if secular laws are meant to be "timeless, eternal..." They'll have a good laugh, then tell you "no." Being absolutely serious here: I do appreciate your looking up the etymology of secular. It's still not correct to apply an ancient meaning to current usage- again, this sort of approach was set aside as early as the mid-70s. There is no eternal, unchanging language; no social circumstance that does not change. CERTAINLY after the west's LONG struggle with the separation of church and state and secular versus religious power. Witness the full secularization of marriages in the west for an example of this. Yes, that's right: Marriages are all secular; religious institutions can do no more than bless or refuse to bless various marriages... and that has as much SECULAR legal weight as a handful of feathers.

The Romans had no concept of separation of church and state; they were one. I said this, you repeated it, and in so doing you showed you either don't care that I already know this, or you choose to ignore that things have changed. Either way, I don't like what you're doing here- it's dishonest at the least.

Secular implies the whole Cosmic Order of the Natural Laws as opposed to the afterlife!

No, it does not. It used to.... almost 2000 years ago!

Need we also get the political orders returned to this prelapsarian state you're inventing? After all, if classical Latin got it right when it comes to "secular" and "religious", the end result of the terms they used must have been perfected, right?

Certainly the Franks would have agreed with you. I don't, obviously, but what do I know? You're CLEARLY the one with the right argument here, and would NEVER think about taking a term out of its historical or cultural context, acting like it hasn't changed or that it's universal. Right?

Of course all people grant laws legitimacy.... BUT the legitimacy is NOT based upon who does/does not uphold them.

As per the law: no one is to take justice into his own hands (jungle rule), for that goes against the common good. See?

What you said in your last post implied that a law's legitimacy is based on personal preference, not consensus, like you've said here.

I think we agree on this point, but we are using different terms. So I don't want to start bickering about something we agree on.

So what are these natural laws? Specific examples, in the Quran, please- not just platitudes or claims.

And what is the "likeness of Abraham"? Where do Muslims get this? And so- again, we come to the crux of the matter. You're talking cosmic. You're talking RELIGIOUS. Or at least metaphysical. WHERE IN ANY MODERN CONSTITUTION (not counting preambles, which are the stating of general principles, and not laws) IS THERE CONSIDERATION OF BEING RIGHT WITH A COSMIC ORDER?

We seen above how the Cosmic Order is rather secular than religious, based on length of time...

No, "we" have NOT seen above. You're using an ancient meaning, applying it anachronistically to the present time, and then acting like that's what it means right now. This is not the case.

Still waiting on that example. From the Quran. Since it's a law book, you should have just oodles of examples.

The binding order of nature is thus embedded in the Vedas' Rta/Dharma, the Koranic deen AND... the US founding documents!

SIGH!!!! So now it's EVERYWHERE. Right. So why is it that IN THE QURAN there are laws that are NOT "natural laws"? Why does it talk about laws that can be circumvented if the entire concept of "law" in the Quran is akin to dharma? And no, the idea of being right with the cosmic order is NOT in the founding US documents. Certainly not as principles of law. There is nothing in any writing from anyone in the US about the concepts akin to dharma before the (bad) translations from Europe arrived in the US in the early/mid-1800s. The US constitution doesn't have any of the concepts because the concepts had not been introduced into the US yet. Not for almost 80 years.

Your post then goes on to send me to other threads. It is not my responsibility to tease your faulty case out from what you said and what you THINK you said.

YOU have to post the relevant quotes HERE. I'm not going to waste my time going through your posts only to find out that you repeated the same fallacies there as here.

As per the Koran itself, I've asked to read Surah 57. You must understand it as similitudes of that Cosmic Order. I hope you can...

It's yet another Surah full of religious proclamations. Where does the US constitution talk about the last days and hellfire? How is the Quran a secular (not in your anachronistic twisting, but in the 18th century sense) document? The two do not remotely match up.

You need to give me some ayahs, here. I'm not seeing it, at all. If you tell me what ayahs in 57 you think deal with laws, I can at least take a look and see if I agree with you.

So like I've stated in the opening post: The West is basically an enemy to Islam because it has different laws, ie. different values.
It wants freedom, while that can't be under The Law. To a Muslim, our notion of freedom is a dead-end... met by fate.

That's why we MUST be knowledgeable in what is The Law according to the Koran, for only then can we construct a valid case.

Until we know what we're facing, ie A System of Laws, we're disputing shadows

You didn't say that in your opening post. You made a faulty connection between the eighteenth century secularism (NOT THE SAME as Roman "secular"- which, btw, SPLIT INTO SACRED AND SECULAR between the 1st and 18th centuries.... quite a while) of the Constitution and the religious laws of the Quran, then had to backtrack and make a case for religious and secular laws being the same thing.... which you have not done; you have only shown how much the terms have changed in 2000 years.... and now you're claiming that, rather than taking on the idea of the legitimacy of the Quran based upon its self-proclaimed origin from a god, we have to take the Quran on as a set of laws like the US constitution.

This despite the fact that, besides your claim that the US constitution is using these ancient Roman terms unchanged, there is no evidence for the specifically religious (in the POST ROMAN SENSE!!!) in the constitution. It's in the preamble- and that vague as possible (on purpose- some of the Founding Fathers were Deists, others Christians, and it was hard enough getting half of them into a room and not throwing punches at each other)- but that's it. Besides as a general principle: human equality is given by 'the creator' (unspecified) along with a few general 'inalienable' rights that 'the creator' didn't seem to see fit to make inalienable until the later 18th century (go figure, that 'creator' being, it certainly changes its mind a lot), there's nothing in the constitution about any god. In fact, the point of the Constitution is that THE PEOPLE (well, their representatives) are ALLOWED to change it.

The law of the Constitution is thus diametrically opposed to the idea of the law in the Quran. And why? BECAUSE THE QURAN IS RELIGIOUS!!!! We can't take it on a set of laws split off from religion, because there is no separation from the religious and non-religious in the Quran.

It IS, however, split in the US constitution and other modern (as in post-Enlightenment) constitutions and law codes.

Your case remains faulty, as it has been from the beginning. Despite the etymology. Despite the backhanded insults to my character "I hope you can", etc.

[crazymonkie_]

Why is the poster honoring you for being a Muslim? I am really confused here.

Why not address your confusion to the person who made the post?

How is it "honoring" him to ask him when he converted to Islam? It's pretty obvious that the context of the quotes you mined out were to point out how Muslims ALWAYS do the same dirty (attempted) tricks he used in the post directed to me: He tried to insult me (or copied the bad habits of Muslim posters?) by saying "simpleton karifun"- to which I said "When did you convert to Islam?" Because otherwise the "simpleton karifun" doesn't make sense.

He then said "Now, look how your buddy (Mbl)..." To which I said "What is it about you Muslims mixing up consonance in argument with friendship?" Emphasis added.

How is THAT honoring him for being a Muslim? I pointed out that he used a common argumentative fallacy that Muslims use (especially if they don't have much of a point): To claim that all the people taking the contra (against) position versus their pro (for) position are buddies. Like there's some vast invisible conspiracy and it's based on the friendship of the contra posters.

My replies could only be taken as "honoring" The Cat from someone who first entirely ignores the meaning of my replies, and second assumed a priori (google "a priori" for a definition) that Islam was some great thing, that associating someone with the belief system was in and of itself a good thing. Neither is true.

Clear now?

[The Cat]

In Latin Saeculum refers to length of time, being opposed to what is timeless, eternal...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular

Go ahead and ask someone if secular laws are meant to be "timeless, eternal...

You are unable to read what is written. Saeculum refers to length of time as OPPOSED to what is timeless.

So like I've stated in the opening post: The West is basically an enemy to Islam because it has different laws, ie. different values.
It wants freedom, while that can't be under The Law. To a Muslim, our notion of freedom is a dead-end... met by fate.

That's why we MUST be knowledgeable in what is The Law according to the Koran, for only then can we construct a valid case.

Until we know what we're facing, ie A System of Laws, we're disputing shadows

You didn't say that in your opening post.

You CAN'T read properly.
viewtopic.php?p=130332#p130332

As this sum up your whole attitude. I see no point in going on with a mule...

[crazymonkie_]

You are unable to read what is written. Saeculum refers to length of time as OPPOSED to what is timeless.

Oops. Good point. Sorry. My mistake there.

Alright, so with secular we're in the world of the changeable. Precisely the point of secular governments and laws. It's opposed to what is timeless- religious. Hence there is a difference between secular and religious. At least as currently defined (the only definition that matters- the more current).

You CAN'T read properly.

ARGH WALLOFTEXT!!!

Quote the relevant part, please. I said before: I can't be bothered to make the case for you by quoting the things you want quoted. You have to point out what you want to show. It's not my responsibility. It is my responsibility to reply to the relevant parts... and at the least, the OP in this thread mentions it very briefly.

Where?

As this sum up your whole attitude. I see no point in going on with a mule...

Or, in other words, you can't reply to my valid points and are once again nitpicking the errors I made in my post.

I'm not a "mule". I just mentioned one point where I was wrong. The base of your argument is wrong, and I've explained how it's wrong. I've made some errors- my fault for reading quickly at some spots- but the basic problems of your argument remain. If you choose not to engage me in conversation, the problems with the argument won't go away. Nor will opposition to the faulty argument- you'll just have to deal with MBL, or zamie, or someone else.

[The Cat]

Or, in other words, you can't reply to my valid points and are once again nitpicking the errors I made in my post.

Valid as: ''The Quran can't be the Saudi Arabia Constitution'' maybe? You've been a joke throughout our debate...

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Why is the poster honoring you for being a Muslim? I am really confused here.

Why not address your confusion to the person who made the post?

I did. That post was addressed to the person known as The Cat.

How is it "honoring" him to ask him when he converted to Islam? It's pretty obvious that the context of the quotes you mined out were to point out how Muslims ALWAYS do the same dirty (attempted) tricks he used in the post directed to me: He tried to insult me (or copied the bad habits of Muslim posters?) by saying "simpleton karifun"- to which I said "When did you convert to Islam?" Because otherwise the "simpleton karifun" doesn't make sense.

He then said "Now, look how your buddy (Mbl)..." To which I said "What is it about you Muslims mixing up consonance in argument with friendship?" Emphasis added.

How is THAT honoring him for being a Muslim? I pointed out that he used a common argumentative fallacy that Muslims use (especially if they don't have much of a point): To claim that all the people taking the contra (against) position versus their pro (for) position are buddies. Like there's some vast invisible conspiracy and it's based on the friendship of the contra posters.

My replies could only be taken as "honoring" The Cat from someone who first entirely ignores the meaning of my replies, and second assumed a priori (google "a priori" for a definition) that Islam was some great thing, that associating someone with the belief system was in and of itself a good thing. Neither is true.

Clear now?

Crazy, have some sense of humor, please. Instead of writing "accusing him", I chose "honoring him". I was being sarcastic.

You have been using the the common argumentative fallacy, which the non-Muslims use and do all the time. Imho, the poster was also being sarcastic, when he called MBL your buddy. Ain't he your buddy on the forum? There is no need to go ballistic.

[crazymonkie_]

I did. That post was addressed to the person known as The Cat.

But the initial comments were mine. You used my comments. You were not addressing your reply to the person who made the post (me), but to the person to whom they were directed.

Crazy, have some sense of humor, please. Instead of writing "accusing him", I chose "honoring him". I was being sarcastic.

Then indicate it.

Sarcasm is indicated by tone. There is no tone in text. I had to add a [/sarcasm] tag to point out where I was sarcastic. You didn't. How is it my fault that you didn't show that you were being sarcastic?

You have been using the the common argumentative fallacy, which the non-Muslims use and do all the time. Imho, the poster was also being sarcastic, when he called MBL your buddy. Ain't he your buddy on the forum? There is no need to go ballistic.

Ummmm.... I didn't go "ballistic", I showed how, assuming (correctly- because you didn't indicate it) that you were being serious, there was a major problem with your taking what I said about The Cat and Islam to be "honoring" him. You didn't say "accusing" in your post. How would I have known that's what you meant? "Accusing" and "honoring" mean two entirely different things- pretty well opposed in meaning.

And what is this "common argumentative fallacy"? I've never even heard of it.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

And what is this "common argumentative fallacy"? I've never even heard of it.

If you had never even heard of it, how did you manage to write that? I heard of it only today through you, Crazy.

A few posts above, you wrote to me:

How is THAT honoring him for being a Muslim? I pointed out that he used a common argumentative fallacy that Muslims use (especially if they don't have much of a point): To claim that all the people taking the contra (against) position versus their pro (for) position are buddies. Like there's some vast invisible conspiracy and it's based on the friendship of the contra posters.

[AhmedBahgat]

And what is this "common argumentative fallacy"? I've never even heard of it.

If you had never even heard of it, how did you manage to write that? I heard of it only today through you, Crazy.

A few posts above, you wrote to me:

How is THAT honoring him for being a Muslim? I pointed out that he used a common argumentative fallacy that Muslims use (especially if they don't have much of a point): To claim that all the people taking the contra (against) position versus their pro (for) position are buddies. Like there's some vast invisible conspiracy and it's based on the friendship of the contra posters.

he is a dummb bum, isn't he

Good catch

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

And what is this "common argumentative fallacy"? I've never even heard of it.

If you had never even heard of it, how did you manage to write that? I heard of it only today through you, Crazy.

A few posts above, you wrote to me:

How is THAT honoring him for being a Muslim? I pointed out that he used a common argumentative fallacy that Muslims use (especially if they don't have much of a point): To claim that all the people taking the contra (against) position versus their pro (for) position are buddies. Like there's some vast invisible conspiracy and it's based on the friendship of the contra posters.

he is a dummb bum, isn't he

Good catch

Glad you enjoyed that. The poster is crazy. Do you think he would still be able to reply?

People tend to forget the lies they write.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

This post is addressed to The Cat

Why is the poster honoring you for being a Muslim? I am really confused here.

You're not the only one.

Anthony de Mello:

"I wish to become a teacher of the Truth." ---"Are you prepared to be ridiculed, ignored and starving till you are forty-five?"
"I am. But tell me: What will happen after I am forty-five?" ---"You will have grown accustomed to it."


Nobody can be said to have attained the pinnacle of Truth
until a thousand sincere people have denounced him for blasphemy.


The master enjoined not austerity, but moderation. If we truly enjoyed things, he claimed,
we would be spontaneously moderate. Asked why he was so opposed to ascetical practices,
he replied, "Because they produce pleasure-haters who always become people-haters — rigid and cruel."


As the Arabs say, "The nature of rain is the same, but it makes thorns grow in the marshes and flowers in the gardens.''

What do any of these statements have to do with you??

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Even granting your interpretation is correct.... it's only correct for the Latin meaning. Things have changed quite a bit since the days of togas and Europe-wide Celts. Where, for instance, is the "secular" aspect that I keep bringing up? Nowhere in Rome, because state and religion were one; blasphemy or heresy was the same thing as sedition

An etymological definition is not my interpretation. For the Romans the emperor was the embodiment of the gods so his laws and that of the
empire were both secular and religious. Same is going still in England in its caesaropapism, so we also do have secular priests...

In Latin Saeculum refers to length of time, being opposed to what is timeless, eternal...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular
Secular implies the whole Cosmic Order of the Natural Laws as opposed to the afterlife!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cosmos

Of course all people grant laws legitimacy.... BUT the legitimacy is NOT based upon who does/does not uphold them.

As per the law: no one is to take justice into his own hands (jungle rule), for that goes against the common good. See?

So what are these natural laws? Specific examples, in the Quran, please- not just platitudes or claims.

And what is the "likeness of Abraham"? Where do Muslims get this? And so- again, we come to the crux of the matter. You're talking cosmic. You're talking RELIGIOUS. Or at least metaphysical. WHERE IN ANY MODERN CONSTITUTION (not counting preambles, which are the stating of general principles, and not laws) IS THERE CONSIDERATION OF BEING RIGHT WITH A COSMIC ORDER?

We seen above how the Cosmic Order is rather secular than religious, based on length of time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.....

Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

The binding order of nature is thus embedded in the Vedas' Rta/Dharma, the Koranic deen AND... the US founding documents!

Now, about the Islamic Deen/SLM & Muslim, equaling the Hindu concepts of Rta/Dharma:
viewtopic.php?p=131600#p131600

As per the Koran itself, I've asked to read Surah 57. You must understand it as similitudes of that Cosmic Order. I hope you can...

And so for the 'likeness of Abraham' or Millata, I have already discuss the matter herein:
viewtopic.php?p=131945#p131945

So like I've stated in the opening post: The West is basically an enemy to Islam because it has different laws, ie. different values.
It wants freedom, while that can't be under The Law. To a Muslim, our notion of freedom is a dead-end... met by fate.

That's why we MUST be knowledgeable in what is The Law according to the Koran, for only then can we construct a valid case.

Until we know what we're facing, ie A System of Laws, we're disputing shadows

Then stick the shadows on a donkey cart and send them back to the Islamic hell hole that either they or their parents came from. That's really the only answer. Or, at least, make life uncomfortable enough for them, appease none of their ways or demands, and perhaps a lot of them will willingly leave. Appeasement does nothing but encourage them, and this has already clearly been proven in Europe. As the German Chancellor recently admitted, multiculturalism has failed. But what she really meant, but couldn't say, is that Muslims simply cannot be expected to blend in, and therefore the experiment failed.

If your next door neighbor thinks he's a king, you do not play along with the psychotic game and call him your highness so that you can talk to him.

[yeezevee]

"If your next door neighbor thinks he's a king, you do not play along with the psychotic game and call him your highness so that you can talk to him."

So who is playing the psychotic game with psychos in FFI dear Muhammad bin Lyin lol

well The Cat is going around and trying to put some sense in Muslims using Islamic manuals and that Indian Priest Anthony de mello

So use Love and sensitive heart to speak to Muslims

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Since you like Anthony de Mello so much, you might enjoy this as well, which more clearly explains what I mean.

Suppose somebody walks into my room one day.
I say, "Come right in. May I know who you are?"
And he says, "I am Napoleon."
And I say, "Not the Napoleon . . ."
And he says, "Precisely. Bonaparte, Emperor of France."
"What do you know!" I say, even while I'm thinking to myself, "I better handle this guy with care."

''Sit down, Your Majesty," I say.
He says, "Well, they tell me you're a pretty good spiritual director. I have a spiritual problem. I'm anxious, I'm finding it hard to trust in God. I have my armies in Russia, see, and I'm spending sleepless nights wondering how it's going to turn out."
So I say, "Well, Your Majesty, I could certainly prescribe something for that. What I suggest is that you read chapter 6 of Matthew: "Consider the lilies of the field . . . they neither toil nor spin."

By this point I'm wondering who is crazier, this guy or me.
But I go along with this lunatic.
That's what the wise guru does with you in the beginning.
He goes along with you; he takes your troubles seriously.
He'll wipe a tear or two from your eye.
You're crazy, but you don't know it yet.

The time has to come soon when he'll pull the rug out from under your feet and tell you, "Get off it, you're not Napoleon."

I only treat Muslims harshly because either they are completely delusional or they consistently lie. Hey, even Jesus had harsh words to say about liars and hypocrites. And although I respect Anthony de Mello greatly, he's no final authority about anything and he expressly stated that he wish not to be so.

And scroll up for a second and look at his picture (movie) that you posted, and then scroll up a little bit more and look at the picture in a post above it. and put the two together, and compare and contrast them, and think about it for a moment. What does it say?

[crazymonkie_]

If you had never even heard of it, how did you manage to write that? I heard of it only today through you, Crazy.

Youmentioned "the" common argumentative fallacy- and say that "the non-Muslims use and do all the time". This implies that it was a specific kind of fallacy. I was asking for a link to the name "the common argumentative fallacy". Like the "red herring" or "tu quoque" or "begging the question" fallacies, I assumed this was a specific kind of fallacy that I wasn't aware of.

I said that the two things that the Cat did in his reply to me are *common argumentative fallacies*, NOT THAT THE NAME OF THE FALLACY WAS "common argumentative fallacy." Comprehension fail.

he is a dummb bum, isn't he

Good catch

Sure, keep cheerleading the guy running straight towards his own team's goal line.

And The Cat: You're still not making a case for the Quran being a code of laws akin to modern constitutions. It's really cute that you think that you scored points by showing how two of the 20-some Articles of the Saudi Arabian constitution are direct from the Quran. It really is. But I already pointed out how there are parts of that constitution with extra-Quranic sources. This despite your claims that their constitution is based solely on the Quran.

AND the Quran is still less and more than a law book- more because it's got a bunch of metaphysics and religio-political statements; less because what little law it has in it is vague and needs supplement.

[AhmedBahgat]

[crazymonkie_]

Your smilies are like your animated "Dismissed" gif. Only a sign that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute in this thread, and that your cheerleading is just a matter of you backing up your "brother in Islam" Ghalib, regardless of whether or not he is correct.