The constitution itself is a system of beleifs. When US political leaders take office, they are required to take an oath to protect the constitution of the US. Is it not the same as when Muslims take the shahida. The rejection of all divinity except the one divine power that stands for the "99 names of Allah" and you take an oath to protect the legal foundation that Mohammad set forth.
When people want to become naturalized citizens of the US society, they are also required to take an oath to protect the constitution of the US which those same people have to take a test that has to be passed and understood what it is. Is it not the same as when a person is converted to Islam, he/she is required to take an oath(shahida) to become a citizen of the Umah(society). The Islamic Society in the past was ruled like a republic with laws that were structured not so different from how the US republics laws are structured.

But the 10% comment is a joke. The US constitution rests solely on the first amendment. The first right is to have free speech and the second right is to bear arms to protect the first right. third right is protection from quartering troops and fourth right is the protection from unlawful search and seizure to protect the second right. See how everything that follows is to protect the foundation. The 99% is used to protect the 1%, the foundation.

I recall an account where chopping off the hand of persistent thief was challenged. The challenge was based on the meaning of the words; where it is proposed that chopping of he hand meant cutting off the means for the person to carry a theft. The 'means' was loosely interpreted as priveleges of a free man in society. In a nut shell a repeat offender was to be deprived of previleges, not removal of the hand.
Of linguists and historians of arabia amongst you may debate this more scholarly or by spitting venom, however i developed my understanding of islamic penalties by juxtaposing the hand amputation with decapitation, where idea of qisas comes to play: the family of murdered person can demand compensation or have killer killed.

My point being the words of the Quran are unequivocal and clear, and if the mind is clouded by doubts, read the hadeeth, and commentary.

Here there is no metaphorical or linguistic loss of true meaning of having the killer killed, due to right of retaliation (however the ayat clearly suggests it better 'rahmat from rabb').

Here it is from the www.mquran.org translation:

2.178. O you who believe! Prescribed for you is retaliation in cases of (deliberate, unjust) killing: freeman for freeman, slave for slave, female for female. Yet if he (the murderer) is granted some remission by his brother (any of the heirs of the victim), then what falls on the pardoning side is fulfilling in fairness what has been agreed on, and the other side is making the payment kindly enough to please the other side. This is a lightening from your Lord, and a mercy. Whoever offends after that, for him is a painful punishment.
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِصَاصُ فِي الْقَتْلَى الْحُرُّ بِالْحُرِّ وَالْعَبْدُ بِالْعَبْدِ وَالأُنثَى بِالأُنثَى فَمَنْ عُفِيَ لَهُ مِنْ أَخِيهِ شَيْءٌ فَاتِّبَاعٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَأَدَاء إِلَيْهِ بِإِحْسَانٍ ذَلِكَ تَخْفِيفٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَرَحْمَةٌ فَمَنِ اعْتَدَى بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَلَهُ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

Let us limit our discussion to Quran so that we may reach to some logical conclusion. We can have a separate debate on American constitution.

I am definitely for democratization and secularization and one day Afghans and Pashtuns will go for it as it is the only system which brings development, prosperity and education. When I say Quran is only meant for religion entails in democracy and secularism as this way religion will be given its due status while politics and economics as well as culture and society will be liberated from the clutches of the so called religion.

I clearly understand the difference between a constitution and a penal code. For your information I have legal background too and have studied in detail roman law, various penal, civil and criminal codes. My contention is that Quran is neither a constitution nor a legal code but a book of religious guidance.

Can you explain further that how Quran indicates that the Prophet and his Disciples as well as those with wisdom provide an adjunct to flesh out its status as a constitution. Where it is said that Quran has a status of a constitution?

Can you explain that how only 1 line in the Quran which mentions the punishment for theft can become a constitutional provision or a legal penal code for the crime of theft? what will be the criminal procedure code for this crime? What will be the law of evidence for his crime? Can you prove that in the entire period of more than 1400 years this punishment has been awarded to 14 persons? Will you punish some one by cutting his hands if he steals 10 dollars? please read here and you will find that cutting hands can be taken metaphorically or figuratively
http://www.misconceptions-about-isla...ands-theft.htm

Your arguments that we have to create conditions before Quranic law promulgation is totally absurd. Is 1400 years less time for creation of such conducive milieu?


Islamic theology mainly deals with ontology and the study of religion which may be philosophical or purely religious. It does not deal with legal issues. how can I prove from Islamic theology that Quran is a book of law or there exists any Quranic law? Also my approach need a paradigm shift as this is a new approach that Islam or Quran is religion and not complete code of life. I am myself learning and searching fro this new concept and with the passage of time I will develop a sound theory in this regard.

Point1: Who cares what you are for or against? As I said before, you stated that you advocate that gunpointing at the head of an Afghan to enforce secularization and democracy is justified. Thats really not much different than the god you worshipped in the 80s named Najibullah nor is it all that much different than the Wahabi mindset.

What we do know for sure though is that you are possibly clinically insane or at least mentally unfit; and in that vein you are more than willing to bend reality to fit your lack thereof.

Point2: You repeated yourself again in the hopes that repitition is reality - frankly, its not and your logic is still obsolete and ignorant. A single line or a single phrase or a single chapter or a single amendment can serve as a foundation for many things. Its your opinion that it cannot - and you are entitled to a non evidence based opinion.

Please learn a new set of phrases or just simply learn the cut and past function because you are wasting time with simply trolling and repeating yourself.

Point 3: Quit being an idiot; hadith literature is replete with examples of the punishment being awarded and by contemporary sources discussing the Prophetic behavior toward the Punishment. Sahih Muslim itself contains 2 hadith; 1 in which the Prophet says that justice would demand that if Fatimah Zahra herself stole a valuable item the punishment of excising her hand would be fit. Abu Hurairah goes on to lament the foolishness of a theif who stole two items and his both hands cut.

Point 4:
Your website is nonsensical. It relies on verbal semantics and selectively excises the most important part of the ayah, you know the portion you chose to ignore because you are malignant? The part where it says: so that it serves as a deterrent??? How does spiritually excising a hand serve as a deterrant. Get real and get a life.

Its second thrust is to say that since the word cut can mean many things it may not mean what it means. For instance, in English, if I say "she cuts out the fluff" or "it cut my heart like a knife" that these are metaphorical. So what? All he proved is that words have different applications. He then goes on to say that since hands is metaphorical in parts of the Quran, this too can mean the punishment is metaphorical.

Thats assinine, so if tomorrow a doctor says, " I examined her hands." that could mean he examined metaphorical hands since in English, the phrase exists: "Things got out of hand"

The author then goes on to concede the possible interpretations INCLUDE the physical penality and says the same I said, which is the community should have a discussion.

Point 5:
You are more absurd than the argument I made. The only thing absurd is that you choose to be "spiritual" when it suits you and materialistic when it suits. My commentary in no way said the Quran needs to be repromulgated. My comment was to indicate that people cannot willy nilly apply laws. For instance, if in denmark someone comes and says: John stole a diamond... A man cannot go and grab a sword and cut off Johns hand. There is due process in all law systems.

Even when it comes to the sunnah of jamah prayer, Ibn Abbas suspended it in the time of raining and flooding so that people would not meet great difficulty. His ability to execute the order was paramount.

Point 5:
Quit wasting my time with silly and stupid requests. 14 examples? Thats your job. You made the assertion, I provided an example from Muslim from Abu Hurairah. The rest of the onus is on you.

Point 6:
You can come up with whatever system you wish. Folks that follow a philandering, murderous guru named Osho have no place in Pashto or dictating to Pashtuns or Americans or even folks in Zimbabwe for that matter.

Point 7: I doubt you have studied constitutional law or penal codes since you, in your words confused the constitution with a penal code. Thats your error. Learn the difference.


If you choose to repeat yourself, I will simply cut and past the above as you are at this juncture trolling.

Great post Lala, but this Badlun is a lost cause, a brick wall.

Point1: Where did I state that that I advocate gunpointing at the head of an Afghan to enforce secularization and democracy is justified. If you show me my such words I will never never appear in these forums and will publicly accept my defeat. Where did i say that I worship Najibullah as a god?

Point2: A single line cannot become a complete system. Its stupidity that you found a system for millions of people just on one reference or one quote. This is axiomatic that Islam was never promulgated as a system because simply it is not complete.

Point 3: Only one hadith or one instance in 1400 years cannot validate a punishment to be part of the legal system. Personally I do not believe in all hadith. If one tries then there can be found one hundred and one reasons that this or that hadith is false. Even in Bukhari yu have week hadiths.
Point 4:
Prove with arguments that the website is nonsensical. For you every thing against your standpoint is stupid, foolish and idiotic. using such words show your base and low mental propensity. I had some respect for you but you have downgraded yourself to such a low position that in each of your posts you have such nonsense. You do not know how to discuss something in a respectful way. It seems you are not an abdali but from a family of barbers or dancers. I never used such words but every thing has a limit. If my arguments are repetitive and not convincing just don't respond but why are you using such a low language all the time. Its beyond my comprehension.
Point 5:
Where is that due process in the so called legal system of islam? This is my basic point that all such injunctions are moralistic as there is no details of awarding such punishments. Just by saying cut the hand , you cannot make a legal code. What kind of system it is that Ibn Abbas suspends it? Who is superior God or Ibn Abbas. Divine laws cannot be suspended. Thats why religious subjects are permanent with no flux. If Ibne Abbas suspends some thing it cannot be divine.


Point 5:
The onus is on you as you say that Quran is complete. I claim it is not. Only religious part is complete not legal or political or economical. If you believe in any quranic legal system then you have to prove it from the history. If I do not believe in it how can I prove it?

Point 6:
Study Osho then you will understand him. But here I have never quoted him. This is purely a religious discussion nothing to do with Osho. Do not make yourself this low to refer to other irrelevant areas to prove your point. Really I am discovering you to be a very shallow person. You have learnt to refer to some American scholars and using few typical sentences to impress people but now I have discovered you that you are a garbage of nonsense.

Point 7: I have never confused the constitution with a penal code. How a student of law for 5 years can confuse these two. My problem is time. Once I get sufficient time you will find me refuting your each and every baseless propositions.

x

I will soon reply to all your comments above but first please do not be so dishonest to quote me with out context. In your above referred post I have written that I have read some where that what Hanafis think or practise about alcohol. I said I have read somewhere I did not mean there that I believe in this myself.

Here I am going to give the links where I read the Hanafi's approach about alcohol, wine or vodka

http://becomeamuslimbecauseitsbest.b...and-drugs.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3145058AALYPL5

If I drink or not, if I being from a Hanafi background myself believe in the above approach is my personal matter but I have never never written in my post that this what I believe.

You are such a liar, such a mean person I could not imagine that before. Please just ask your conscience why are you so base, so mean and such a dejected soul that for proving your point you take the support of dishonesty, meanness, calling names, blatant lies and hypocrisy. Just be sinecure with your own self for a second and you will find your true worth and may repent and may not adopt such unfair means in such public discussions for attention of some one and for cheap popularity

^^How could you be a hanafi if you actually beleive that hanafis are OK with vodka.