Tweet
Originally posted by BarakzaiAbdali
View Post
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.
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.
Comment