Cutting the thief's hand- the debate raging on
-
peace Bigmo,
I would like to see verses being referenced for your view, or even articles discussing the view you mention that have actual evidence from Al Quran (AQ). I do not think this request is too difficult.
Firstly, who says that each situation must only have one option? AQ itself discusses several options for the same thing a few times.
Secondly, if there was disagreement, what's wrong with the court deciding the option by majority vote? If no majority for any, default to the minimum punishment.
Thirdly, the basics are always easy to establish. How much actual work has been done to establish such things based on The Quran by itself? Hardly any as far as I can see, hence the apparent variability in opinion.I am of the view we are living in a Quranic Renaissance period, thus these things will get more and more clarified, and maybe, who knows, culminate in being implemented in part or more somewhere. When you are digging or uncovering buried treasure, sometimes it takes a while to fully uncover the treasure, and during the process of digging deeper and deeper you get glimpses of it, but it takes time to fully ascertain it. ;D
Lastly, I read a book, I think it was "Modern Muslim Intellectuals and The Quran" and Fazlur Rahman, I think, said that when it comes to punishments, there is a specific punishment often mentioned, options sometimes, and along with them often an overview given in terms of direction to head when deciding these things, e.g. 4240.
Its not realistic because from banking laws, to border control, to immigration laws, to medical ethics, to marine laws to environmental protection laws, its hard for me to see if anything can be done regarding a legal framework with reference to the Koran. The Koran gives broad guidelines but is very skeletal about a legal framework.
As far as bringing verses from the Koran I can easily do that just look at the verses about what God ordered people and what the prophet's teached. Look at what Abraham was preaching, what Noah was preaching and what Jesus was preaching. Other than Moses and Muhammad its hard to see any legal framework that is based on public policy. Both these religions relied on oral traditions to fill the gap and through that they created a legal framework.
The Koran can be used as an inspiration but beyond that its hard for me to see how this can be done. As far as elections are concerned, yes but thats not necessarily based on the Koran. Thats based on consensus. It can change as time changes. There are guidelines like do not go beyond equivocal response and do not make a society based only on the wealthy. These are guidelines and inspirations, not a legal framework that countries can enact laws over.
One good question. What kind of an economy would the Koran recomend in your mind?
-
peace,
Its not realistic because from banking laws, to border control, to immigration laws, to medical ethics, to marine laws to environmental protection laws, its hard for me to see if anything can be done regarding a legal framework with reference to the Koran.
To prove your point, why not bring the strongest evidence you have (or several of the strongest) and post them, then members can discuss them.
The Koran gives broad guidelines but is very skeletal about a legal framework.
Of course it does, that is its genius. No book can detail every law on every situation possible. It gives us the specifics, and the hikma to determine the rest.
As far as bringing verses from the Koran I can easily do that just look at the verses about what God ordered people and what the prophet's teached. Look at what Abraham was preaching, what Noah was preaching and what Jesus was preaching. Other than Moses and Muhammad its hard to see any legal framework that is based on public policy.
I dont understand the evidence nor the point you are trying to make here. Please clarify.
Both these religions relied on oral traditions to fill the gap and through that they created a legal framework.
What did the people during Muhammad's time and immediately after him have? Did they have oral traditions? They seemed to be very successful.
One good question. What kind of an economy would the Koran recomend in your mind?
I have not studied this topic. However, can you be a bit more specific? Also, if this would be one of your strongest evidences for AQ cannot be used for a legal framework, then feel free to start a separate thread, or you can discuss it here if you want. (see my opening sentence in this post)
-
peace,
To prove your point, why not bring the strongest evidence you have (or several of the strongest) and post them, then members can discuss them.
Of course it does, that is its genius. No book can detail every law on every situation possible. It gives us the specifics, and the hikma to determine the rest.
I dont understand the evidence nor the point you are trying to make here. Please clarify.
What did the people during Muhammad's time and immediately after him have? Did they have oral traditions? They seemed to be very successful.
I have not studied this topic. However, can you be a bit more specific? Also, if this would be one of your strongest evidences for AQ cannot be used for a legal framework, then feel free to start a separate thread, or you can discuss it here if you want. (see my opening sentence in this post)
One of the best way to look at it is for us to ask what was Muhammad's job. This would then gives an understanding of the goal and purpose of the Koran. Prophets have different biographies. If Muhammad was to have remained in Mecca and never had to leave Mecca then the Koran would have probably been different. But there are some things which would not have changed regardless of Muhammad's biography or any other prophet's biography.
It always seems to me that Muslims limit God's plan within the confinements of Muhammad's biography. This is why Sunnis rely on Azbab Al Nuzool. These are narrations that are supposed to give us an idea as to the occassions certain verses came down. They are to tell us when they came down and what were the events on the ground that led to these verses coming down. Azbab Al Nuzool also is intended in giving us an idea as to how these verses were understood and implimented.
Now, why would someone need that kind of information? Anotherwords there is a strong need to have a better understanding of the life of Muhammad and his biography and the events in his life. But none of these issues are discussed in the Koran. Hence the need for Sunni jurist to acquire that information from outside the Koran.
Sunnis also need to know how can we worship God and how we can understand his religion by also looking at how Muhammad performed them and understood them. And since the Koran does not give us that information once again we need to try to find some way to acquire that information. It is precisely for this reason Sunnis will tell you the Koran is not sufficient. The Koran does not give us a better understanding of Muhamamd's life and biography and therefore the Koran is not sufficient on its own for us to understand our religion. Notice the connection between understanding religion and Muhammad's life and biography.
To do that Sunnis need abrogation. Meaning the other prophets' biography is not relevant. Which is why there are only concerned with the verses about obeying the messenger if it relates to Muhammad and only muhammad even though the Koran talks about obedience with reference to many other prophets. They also emphasize the example of the prophet Muhammad without emphasizing the examples of the other prophets. Its strange they would do that given the enormous amount of ink the Koran gives for the other prophets.
But why would the Koran spend so much ink on the other prophets? Why is it that Sunnis are concerned primarily with Muhammad's biography. This then needed reliance on outside information because the Koran does not provide that to the extent they need. But why is that need not fulfilled in the Koran? Another words how much information should there be about a prophet's life in the Koran? And why should that information not be enough?
Many Koranist do not understand the reasons that hadith was needed. Thay are only interested with denying any need for that. But they never seem to ask themselves why Sunnis needed that in the first place.
Why wouldn't the Koran provide that? To answer this we must look at what Muhammad's was sent for in the first place. What was the job and function that God chose him for? This will then tell us what the Koran was concerned about.
And those who believe in Allah and His messengers and do not make a distinction between any of them-- Allah will grant them their rewards; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful 4.152
Say ye "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord We make no difference between one and another of them And we bow to Allah (in Islam)." 2.136
Say We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit 3.84
The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His messengers." And they say "We hear, and we obey (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys." 2.285
Here the Koran seems to warn us about not making any distinctions between the prophets. Sunnis will tell you they don't. But they DO make a distinction between the prophets and they do that based on what they see is the prophetic tradition and biography to follow. That is where their distinction is. The don't believe in the Koran and Sunnah of the prophets, they believe in the Koran and the Sunnah of Muhammad. The Koran meanwhile gives us many Sunnahs of the prophets.
To be able NOT to make a distinction between these prophets there must be a commanilty that is shared by all of them. How else can we not make a distinction unless there is a commanility between all of the prophets. What are these commanilities? What is it that binds all these prophets together? What is it that they all shared?
I think that these are the question we must look at because that will give us what the Koran was sent for and what is its purpose for us. We need to look what the other prophets said and what they preached and what was their biographies and legacies. We need to understand how we can make no distinction between any of God's messengers and prophets and we need to understand why the Muslims have made a distinction between Muhammad and the rest of the prophets and what was their purpose of doing that and what are the consequences of that.
-
I assume your post was addressed to me. If so, I dont quite understand its relevance to what we were discussing. I dont particularly disagree with most of what you said though.
Another words the things that Koranist are not able to do is exactly what hadiths were created to achieve. We attack hadiths without understanding why it appeared in the first place. Thats why we can't agree on any legal framework or a standard religious rituals. Because thats why hadiths were there for. Without it can't be done.
Its very relevant to what we are discussing. These debates we are having occurred from the earliest days of Islam and led to the rise of the proponents of hadiths.
If you believe there is an Islamic state and Islamic law then you are basically admitting that the Koran is not sufficient. If you believe we can have a precise understanding of how we can perform our religious rituals from the Koran then you are also basically admitting that the Koran is not sufficient. It can't be done without a detailed understanding of Muhammad's biography or at least a detailed understanding of any other prophet.
The Koran dooes not provide that. Its that simple.
-
Cutting off the thiefs hand wasn't that hard of punishment in those days. A thief was a disbeliever. When Moses found his people to worship a calf, he told them to kill themselves. Indeed, in modern society we can have lesser punishments, because the damage is less, by theft or idolatry. But in those days, it was different. A people could not tolerate idiocy like idolatry, it would mean their destruction.
-
Cutting off the thiefs hand wasn't that hard of punishment in those days. A thief was a disbeliever. When Moses found his people to worship a calf, he told them to kill themselves. Indeed, in modern society we can have lesser punishments, because the damage is less, by theft or idolatry. But in those days, it was different. A people could not tolerate idiocy like idolatry, it would mean their destruction.
Its not about a hard punishment or not. Capital punishment is accepted today in many parts of the world including the US. However even on that subject there is no agreement. There is no agreement because there is no agreement on how to interpret the Koranic verses regarding that subject. There is only so many verses about that subject and its not possible to reach a consensus on what the Koran says about it.
The same with Zakat even though the payment of taxes ia an accepted form of practice today. So I think the issue here has to do with how verses are interpreted. There is simply not enough ink in the Koran regarding public policy.
-
I have had no problem in understanding it. Only problem is wading through all the nonsense written about these things. Look at the world. All people have had their messengers. The Quran talks about sensible arrangements. They aren't strange rituals to follow. Tax, etc is all in there. Also a mind with good actions to reflect on, is a pure mind, and this is also what the Quran talks about. Good deeds, a clear conscience. Purification. And not only of mind, but of body.
-
peace,
Another words the things that Koranist are not able to do is exactly what hadiths were created to achieve.
And what exactly is it that "Koranist" are not able to do? As I requested earlier, simply bring your strongest example of this, or several of them, then we can discuss and see.
We attack hadiths without understanding why it appeared in the first place.
Perhaps others do, but I have some ideas of why ahadith came about, in fact, not only did I write about this several years ago, the EXACT same point you make, but I have also mentioned it on the forum a few times that if we take what goes on in forum discussion as an example of living in a Quranic era and we can see already the variation in view, thus having it formalised, tied down, made rigid etc gains weight, then come schools of thought, hadiths etc. Supply and demand in action, history repeating itself etc. In this is a sign for those who reflect.
So rather than assuming anything about me, let's stick to an actual evidence based discussion.
Thats why we can't agree on any legal framework or a standard religious rituals. Because thats why hadiths were there for. Without it can't be done.
You state that we cant agree on any legal framework, yet fail to bring any specifics. Further, you assume that there is a standard ritual XYZ, or one size fits all concept, when you haven't even proven this from AQ! In other words, your argument is baseless.
If you believe there is an Islamic state and Islamic law then you are basically admitting that the Koran is not sufficient.
I assume you mean "Islamic law" as per quran+hadith+sunna etc.
If you believe we can have a precise understanding of how we can perform our religious rituals from the Koran then you are also basically admitting that the Koran is not sufficient.
Not sure why you singled out "religious rituals" but in any case so if I believe what AQ says (e.g. it is detailed, clear, self-sufficient, examples of everything) that means I also believe it is not sufficient?
I think you'll find there is a contradiction in your statement.
It can't be done without a detailed understanding of Muhammad's biography or at least a detailed understanding of any other prophet.
The Koran dooes not provide that. Its that simple.
Assumption. Not to mention your reasoning could be classed under several logical fallacies
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
-
I would like to weigh in on a few points randomly with my very limited knowledge of the Quran, so feel free to ignore me. But this has to be said.
Bigmo, saying that we should turn to Hadith because Quran does not provide a detailed framework for legislative purposes seems backwards to me. Quran does not provide nit-picking details on every possibility in life on purpose because what did work for the people of country A yesterday may not work for the people of country B today or the people of country C tomorrow. Also because it is not meant to be a complete and exhaustive set of rules. God in his infinite mercy has only provided us with the basics of how things should be done, the rest is for us to flesh out because remember, Quran was not only meant for the Arabs of the 7th century or for the people of today, but for all people of all times. According to your logic, Quran should have been a scholarly tome with volumes upon volumes which would have made perfect sense to the ancient Arabs, but would have been worse than useless to us. Incidentally, if you are after such a work, I would like to refer you to the Hadiths. Instead of being sheep and looking for guidance and rulings from antiquated man made books, we need to use our own heads and work out what does and doesn't work for us today, in accordance with the basics laid out clearly in the Quran.
So to answer your question in a limited way, God does not care what our border, financial, immigration, medical and environmental protection law books are full of, as long as they contain laws based on justice for all and not just the very few (and rich!)
-
From the QRT
Should Thieves' Hands Be Cut Off?
If non-Muslims "know" anything about Islam, it is that they "know" that the Quran mandates a severe punishment for thieves the cutting off of their hands. Here are three traditional translations of the famous passage followed by our translation
Disputed passage Traditional translations render the punishment for thieves as "cut off," while the verb has other meanings too.
Yusuf Ali As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime and Allah is Exalted in power. (53
Pickthall As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise. (53
Shakir And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (53
Reformist The male thief, and the female thief, you shall mark, cut, or cut-off their hands/means as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Noble, Wise. (53
DISCUSSION OF 538
The Quran often uses words with more than one applicable and relevant meaning. This leads to verses that mean two, three, or more things at the same time, verses that make the translator's job exquisitely difficult.
We come now to such a verse. The verb form we translated as "mark, cut, or cut off" comes from a root verb -- QaTa'A ? that occurs in the Quran many times. In almost all of its occurrences in the Quran, this verb means "to sever a relationship" or "to end an act." Only in two instances (1231 and 1250) is this verb clearly used to describe a physical cutting; in another instance (6946), the verb might possibly be interpreted in that way. A related form of this same verb -- one that implies repetition or severity of action -- occurs in the Quran seventeen times. This particular form is used to mean physically cutting off; or as a metaphor for the severing of a relationship; or to describe physically cutting or marking, but not cutting off.
Thus, the verse recommending punishment for theft or burglary, in the context of the Quran and its terminology (and not the terminology or interpretation attributed to Muhammad or his followers) provides us with a single verb ? but one that God has permitted to incorporate a range of possible penalties. For instance
? Cutting or marking the person's hands as a means of public humiliation and identification;
? Physically cutting off the person's hands; or
? Cutting off the person's means and resources to steal and burglarize (presumably through rehabilitation or imprisonment).The act of imposing any of these penalties, or any of their combinations, would of course depend on the facts of each case, the culpability and mental capacity of the accused, and the ability of the society as a whole to act in accordance with God's other instructions in the Quran. Note, for instance, that a Muslim society cannot punish a hungry person for stealing food, since letting a member of the society go hungry is a much bigger crime than the act of stealing food. Such a society actually demonstrates the characteristics of a society of unappreciative people! (See 1071-7; 8917-20; and 906-20). Considering theft solely as an individual crime, and advocating the severest possible interpretation of the Quran in rendering punishment, is neither fair nor consistent with the scripture.
-
I would like to weigh in on a few points randomly with my very limited knowledge of the Quran, so feel free to ignore me. But this has to be said.
Bigmo, saying that we should turn to Hadith because Quran does not provide a detailed framework for legislative purposes seems backwards to me. Quran does not provide nit-picking details on every possibility in life on purpose because what did work for the people of country A yesterday may not work for the people of country B today or the people of country C tomorrow. Also because it is not meant to be a complete and exhaustive set of rules. God in his infinite mercy has only provided us with the basics of how things should be done, the rest is for us to flesh out because remember, Quran was not only meant for the Arabs of the 7th century or for the people of today, but for all people of all times. According to your logic, Quran should have been a scholarly tome with volumes upon volumes which would have made perfect sense to the ancient Arabs, but would have been worse than useless to us. Incidentally, if you are after such a work, I would like to refer you to the Hadiths. Instead of being sheep and looking for guidance and rulings from antiquated man made books, we need to use our own heads and work out what does and doesn't work for us today, in accordance with the basics laid out clearly in the Quran.
So to answer your question in a limited way, God does not care what our border, financial, immigration, medical and environmental protection law books are full of, as long as they contain laws based on justice for all and not just the very few (and rich!)
Who said anything about going back to hadiths. And just because the proponents of hadiths emerged to create a theocracy and an orthodoxy because the Koran does not provide one in no way indicates the authenticity of these hadiths. In fact I do not believe in the authenticity of many of these hadiths for the simple fact that if there is gaps then they would easily fill it up with a fabrication. Why is it that people sometimes put words in people's mouth before asking a question?
I am saying that Koranist who endlessly engage in trying to find a legal framework and standard ritual using the Koran are wasting their time.
Edip's article sums up the various points of view regarding the cutting of the hand issue. Each has just as much evidence from the Koran as the other views. And here lies the problem. Unless we accept that the Koran did not come to establish a theocracy or an orthodoxy then i think we will be adding more fuel to those who claim the Koran is insufficient if we insist that there is a theocracy and an orthodoxy in the Koran.
Wakas's problem is he thinks when I talk about Koranist I am talking about him only. I am talking about the Koranic movement in general and the endless debate about 2 salat, or 3 salat etc or polygamy or capital punishment. You can use the Koran to justify capital punishment and you can use the Koran to abolish it. Each has equal weight. There is not enough ink in the Koran about public policy subject and subjects regarding rituals.
Many Koranist will present their point of view as Koranic only for someone else to also present his view as equally Koranic. Both views have support from the Koran depending how you interpret the verses. People can lean towards one view or the other but they never really can fully justify their view as necessarily correct and the other wrong.
At least thats been my observance.
-
Peace "bigmo",
The weight is not equal for all sides. Dont you agree that the usage of the verb "qata" bro Edip showed above in MOST INSTANCES in the Quran does not indicate physical cutting or even in case of phyjsical cutting giving a superb example of how the women CUT their hands whilst looking at Joseph? Can one honestly say tht they cut their complete hands? SO we should at least agree that te Quran does not allow for the interpretation of completely cutting off the hand. GOD Bless! -
Peace "bigmo",
The weight is not equal for all sides. Dont you agree that the usage of the verb "qata" bro Edip showed above in MOST INSTANCES in the Quran does not indicate physical cutting or even in case of phyjsical cutting giving a superb example of how the women CUT their hands whilst looking at Joseph? Can one honestly say tht they cut their complete hands? SO we should at least agree that te Quran does not allow for the interpretation of completely cutting off the hand. GOD Bless!But maybe the Arabs did physically cut the hands of thiefs and maybe this was the sort of penal system that existed in Arabia before the Koran came down. I know the Persians had a presence there before Islam and I would not be surprised if the Persians enacted this form of punishment.
After seizing a great empire, Darius endeavored to judge it by establishing laws. The empire was divided into twenty provinces, each ruled by a Persian satrap and a commander-in-chief. The Persians were exempted from taxation, and India's gold provided nearly a third of the total annual tribute valued at 14,500 talents of silver. Inspectors called "the ears of the king" kept him informed and had their own armed forces. The laws were intended to keep the stronger from destroying the weak. Judges were appointed for life unless they were removed for miscarriage of justice. Darius claimed that he loved what is right and hated lies and what is wrong, that he was not angry but restrained those who were angry. Those who injured he punished. Those who did not speak the truth he did not trust, believing that anyone who lies destroys. He even withdrew a death sentence when he realized that he had violated his own law not to execute anyone for only one crime; but in weighing the man's services against his crime he ended up making him a governor. However, the death penalty was used for offenses against the state or the royal family, and mutilation was common for lesser crimes.
http//www.san.beck.org/1-6-Persia.html#4
-
Bigmo Apologies for the misunderstanding, but from the gist of your posts, it seemed that you were promoting a hadith based framework. I tend to think that someone should not suffer an amputation for the conviction of a crime, because that way how are miscarriages of justice corrected? It does not fit in with the spirit of Islam to me. Edip also made a very good point about not jumping to the severest possible sentence in the scripture.
-
Bigmo Apologies for the misunderstanding, but from the gist of your posts, it seemed that you were promoting a hadith based framework. I tend to think that someone should not suffer an amputation for the conviction of a crime, because that way how are miscarriages of justice corrected? It does not fit in with the spirit of Islam to me. Edip also made a very good point about not jumping to the severest possible sentence in the scripture.
I agree also but is it really a question of what I think or you think or what Edip believes? The question is providing the evidence from the Koran regarding an issue. We might have an understanding based on our overall outlook on the Koran. Because I accept the Old testament and in fact I am trying to read it these days I am not particularly concerned about harshness of punishment. If you think the Koran can be tough then go look at the Old Testament. Even the Gospel where Jesus says amputation is better than hell fire, of course it is and nobody doubts that no Earthly punishment whatever it is can equate with hellfire. But when you are dealing with public policy you need to have a legal foundation. The Koran in my mind offers guidelines and certain ideas and moral codes. It gives angles and emphasizes priorities, but i am not sure if a whole legal framework can be based on the Koran. The Koran can be an inspiration for something larger like a constitution, but beyond that I will have to see it before I believe it. Anyways I think this is probably due to the sectarian influences in many of us, we were raised with Islam and public policy mixed together and it may seem odd to us to see a much more limited role for the Koran is specifics. Remeber, I am talking about specifics and not the broad sets of values in a community for that the Koran lays out many such values. But as far as legal specifics that can be used lets say in a judicial system, then I see this as a problem.
-
Peace "bigmo",
But maybe the Arabs did physically cut the hands of thiefs and maybe this was the sort of penal system that existed in Arabia before the Koran came down. I know the Persians had a presence there before Islam and I would not be surprised if the Persians enacted this form of punishment.
JK- What is more significant? What the Arabs MAY have done or what the Quran lays emphasis on based on the aformentioned facts? GOD Bless!
-
Peace "bigmo",
JK- What is more significant? What the Arabs MAY have done or what the Quran lays emphasis on based on the aformentioned facts? GOD Bless!
How can you understand the Koran unless you have an undertsanding of its audience? The Koran did not come down Chinese on the people of Arabia. It could have, but there is a reason why it came down in Arabic. And it does have to do that the prophet spoke that language. I think thats a weak argument if you ask me. And I detect as sense of frustration in that statement. Why is it that those who emphasis the Koran as fully detailed and complete want a robotic society where the Koran provides all the answers small or big. Isn't that Sunnism? Well they have their hadiths to do that and many Muslim societies are robotic societies where even how to pray is provided for in detail and many aspects of their lives are dictated to the point where they grow beards and shorten their robes and carry miswaks. Is that what we really want? Where women and men have all aspects of their lives and livelihood dictated by clerics who have knowledge of those hadiths that interferes in all aspects of human lives including their sex lives. Then we cry about Muslim societies being decadent and non innovative and blinded in their traditions and their worshiping of the past. Is that what we really looking for? A Koranic alternative where the Koran creates for us all the solutions and we just have to apply them and wait for God's blessings. Is the Koran going to be able to do that? I don't see that happening or at least i have not seen it happening. So lets and wait and see.
Let me ask you this, is this how any of our lives operate? Do we have someone telling us how to go about our lives and how to function daily? Do we have anyone making decisions for us and providing for us our solutions? Is this why we came here to Earth? Do we not go through trials and tribulations and go through the pain and dissappointments of life? Do we not sometimes get confused and feel like our lives are meaningless and that nobody cares? Then why is it that we expect something different when it comes to public policy and public rituals?
I agree with Wakas in one thing that by relying on voting and consensus it does provide for a better society and may bring about unity.
But many Koranist are still going to invoke the statement "Why rely on votes and majority decisions when the Koran should be the only arbitrator!" Sounds Khawariji don't it laugh
-
Bigmo,
Summary of your argument so far
You provide no evidence from Al Quran for your view.
You provide no reasoned/logical argument from Al Quran for your view.
You state subjective opinion like "I dont think there is a choice", "its hard for me to see if anything can be done regarding a legal framework with reference to the Koran", "they have equal weight" etc. ALL unevidenced subjective opinion.
You evade answering most of my questions.
Your statements/reasoning are contradictory and contains logical fallacies. The most prominent is the one central to your argument, which I already highlighted, but here it is again
It can't be done without a detailed understanding of Muhammad's biography or at least a detailed understanding of any other prophet.
The Koran dooes not provide that. Its that simple.
Let me walk you through your logical fallacy... (circular reasoning, begging the question)
You make an unevidenced baseless conclusion marked in RED, then use this "conclusion" as fact to prove your main argument marked in BLUE. Put more simply
You need XYZ (see red) to do ABC (legal framework etc) -------------- unevidenced/subjective/baseless
Quran does not have XYZ
Therefore, Quran is not for ABC or cant do ABC.Wakas's problem is he thinks when I talk about Koranist I am talking about him only.
If a person evades answering my questions and keeps referring back to an unevidenced/subjective/baseless point, then I will attempt to eliminate that point so we can get back on track.
You know how you can tell when someone's argument is weak? They prefer to concentrate on peripheral subjective points.
Sorry, but that's not how I like to discuss.
If you want to have an evidence based discussion, let me know, otherwise feel free to do your own thing.
