Tweet
The "pronoun" you can be used in 2nd person plural, not third, but this cannot apply when a someone is addressing one person's content or material. The point was not to discuss grammar of pronouns, but to highlight how the change in someone's pattern of behavior reflected cognitive dissonance due to how powerful Truth is.
In Mathematics the definition of an axiom intrinsically true by it's own condition so that other things can be derived based on it; the common definition is something which is a self evident truth, which is not derived. The matters being discuss here are not have this quality; for us to know their validity, they must be derived and depend on different contexts and conditions for them to follow. That is why we need logic to determine whether they're true or false, that's why logic cannot be avoided.
If this is friendly discussion, that's fine but when one deals with matters of this nature and are writing to reach an audience. Then it's not merely just a friendly discourse but a subject with an objective and purpose, and to measure if the material is correct, there needs to be something to support it.
Repeating the same fallacy over again will not make it appear like truth; It's like a horse who is chasing a carrot which is held on a string in front of him, no matter how much he runs after the carrot it never reaches him. Perhaps it's an attempt brainwashing the audience that if something is repeated over again they start thinking it's real. The problem is how can this work when someone is always responding back with logic? The common Pashtun will see that the logical argument has more facts and support and the one that avoided seems incorrect. So the common Pashtun will disregard this argument.
Originally some people said that Islam is just beliefs because Shari'ah has never existed for 1400 years, then when they were shown wrong, they changed and said they that there has never been an example of Shari'ah except a few years early years and merely Arab politics; when it was shown that even this was wrong, that many of the early Muslims were not even Arabs, like Imam Abu Hanifa; they changed their answer again, and said that the first few years of Islam doesn't prove anything and that it was now Arab-Turk-Persian politics. Do they think the common Pashtun won't notice? EVery common Pashtun will notice how their alterations and laugh at them and then ignore their ideas, because they see the original one was wrong. Originally Arab politics was mentioned to portray that it was ethnic politics, then when other ethnicities came, it transformed to Arab-Turk-Persian; but if all these ethnic groups were involved, then it's no longer Ethno-centric, which is apart of the Islamic Shari'ah standards. The argument even loses more logic by examining it further. The original body of Muslims and how they dealt with problems IS PROOF of Shari'ah, even if we assume it was just a shot period because this was the time period which Islam was formulated; so their actions would have direct guidance from Islamic Rulings in the process.
The next claim they had no other system to rely on is false. Democracy simply means common people have political power; the Early Muslims chose their Khilafah based on their piety and competence as a leader as instructed by the Qur'anic verse 42:38; this was already enshrined by the Qur'an, Islam and shari'ah are true democracy, not the facade you see in secular capitalist institutions which is basically mind control and manipulation of common people. Even beyond this point, Shari'ah was applied not by arab politics but by directly using Islamic sources as guidance for how to deal with different issues, that's how Fiqh became an appratus which implemented that.
For proofs of this read the book Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaniyah which is a compedium of how Islamic texts were applied by the Abbasids for solving different social and political issues and ruled over their society.
In short many people with weak knowledge or utter ignorance try to discourage Islaam and Shari'ah, but like the Persian saying "You can't hide the sun behind two fingers" . They can't hide the truth here.
In Mathematics the definition of an axiom intrinsically true by it's own condition so that other things can be derived based on it; the common definition is something which is a self evident truth, which is not derived. The matters being discuss here are not have this quality; for us to know their validity, they must be derived and depend on different contexts and conditions for them to follow. That is why we need logic to determine whether they're true or false, that's why logic cannot be avoided.
If this is friendly discussion, that's fine but when one deals with matters of this nature and are writing to reach an audience. Then it's not merely just a friendly discourse but a subject with an objective and purpose, and to measure if the material is correct, there needs to be something to support it.
Repeating the same fallacy over again will not make it appear like truth; It's like a horse who is chasing a carrot which is held on a string in front of him, no matter how much he runs after the carrot it never reaches him. Perhaps it's an attempt brainwashing the audience that if something is repeated over again they start thinking it's real. The problem is how can this work when someone is always responding back with logic? The common Pashtun will see that the logical argument has more facts and support and the one that avoided seems incorrect. So the common Pashtun will disregard this argument.
Originally some people said that Islam is just beliefs because Shari'ah has never existed for 1400 years, then when they were shown wrong, they changed and said they that there has never been an example of Shari'ah except a few years early years and merely Arab politics; when it was shown that even this was wrong, that many of the early Muslims were not even Arabs, like Imam Abu Hanifa; they changed their answer again, and said that the first few years of Islam doesn't prove anything and that it was now Arab-Turk-Persian politics. Do they think the common Pashtun won't notice? EVery common Pashtun will notice how their alterations and laugh at them and then ignore their ideas, because they see the original one was wrong. Originally Arab politics was mentioned to portray that it was ethnic politics, then when other ethnicities came, it transformed to Arab-Turk-Persian; but if all these ethnic groups were involved, then it's no longer Ethno-centric, which is apart of the Islamic Shari'ah standards. The argument even loses more logic by examining it further. The original body of Muslims and how they dealt with problems IS PROOF of Shari'ah, even if we assume it was just a shot period because this was the time period which Islam was formulated; so their actions would have direct guidance from Islamic Rulings in the process.
The next claim they had no other system to rely on is false. Democracy simply means common people have political power; the Early Muslims chose their Khilafah based on their piety and competence as a leader as instructed by the Qur'anic verse 42:38; this was already enshrined by the Qur'an, Islam and shari'ah are true democracy, not the facade you see in secular capitalist institutions which is basically mind control and manipulation of common people. Even beyond this point, Shari'ah was applied not by arab politics but by directly using Islamic sources as guidance for how to deal with different issues, that's how Fiqh became an appratus which implemented that.
For proofs of this read the book Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaniyah which is a compedium of how Islamic texts were applied by the Abbasids for solving different social and political issues and ruled over their society.
In short many people with weak knowledge or utter ignorance try to discourage Islaam and Shari'ah, but like the Persian saying "You can't hide the sun behind two fingers" . They can't hide the truth here.
Comment