Free-Minds.org is another Sect...like Suni and Shia Sects.
-
Definition of "resources".
Read and answer
Nice...with no more hands...
rotfl
Nice one, guest. You dont have any better arguements than an arguementum ad hominem.
nope
4911 O you who acknowledge, let not a people ridicule other people, for they may be better than them. Nor shall any women ridicule other women, for they may be better than them. Nor shall you mock one another, or call each other names. Evil indeed is the reversion to wickedness after attaining acknowledgement. Anyone who does not repent, then these are the transgressors.
Anyways..I dont think it makes much sense in continuing to discuss with you.
218 Deaf, dumb, blind - they cannot turn back.
I have already responded to your post. Perhaps you don't want to admit your wrong.
As for "Iguess that's how you get by in your discussions when you don't have solid arguements... with insults, one of them being to theNabsster", I guess you are using Nabster as a excuse for not having an answer. With respect to insult, Nabster is the transgressor.
-
I have already responded to your post. Perhaps you don't want to admit your wrong.
As for "Iguess that's how you get by in your discussions when you don't have solid arguements... with insults, one of them being to theNabsster", I guess you are using Nabster as a excuse for not having an answer. With respect to insult, Nabster is the transgressor.
Forum rules
3] Respect other users of the forum.My friend, if you don't care about forum rules, you may leave. thanks
-
Peace all,
I would like to share with you and everyone how my Logic played a role in my understanding of 5-38?
First, All of us in this debate agree that 5-33 calls for the Punishment of "Cutting Hand and Leg from alternate sides" of those Who "Corrupt in Land".
peace Belh
hmm The whole verse states other punishments as well but i agree that the cutting hand and leg is there.
Second, according to 1273, stealing is a "Corruption in Land" type Crime.
1273 They said By God, you know we have not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are not thieves!
1273I have two issues
- How can you make such a link? it says we are not here to cause x and we are not y. There is no link! Think more about this.
- This is a quote of a person and not a statement from God. Whats more of an issue is that the quote does not come from someone reliable like the prophets. Then again this does not matter as there is no link as i said in my first point.
Third, if 5-38 would have not been revealed, then we all would have agreed that the Thieve Quranic Punishment is 5-33--"Cutting Hand and Leg from alternate sides""...However, God wanted to reduce the punishment of Stealing, and therefore, 5-38 came to reduce the cutting to "Hands Cutting".
Those who ignore their hearts would have agreed. Those who would have payed attention to their hearts and logic would have reasoned that their must be something wrong with their interpretation or that they have missed something.
Please trust your heart more.
-
I have two issues
- How can you make such a link? it says we are not here to cause x and we are not y. There is no link! Think more about this.
Peace all,
I will try to explain further based on your illustration.
If they caused X then they are Y.
If Y= Thieves
Then X= Stealing
And if X= Corruption in Land
Then Stealing = Corruption in Land- This is a quote of a person and not a statement from God. Whats more of an issue is that the quote does not come from someone reliable like the prophets. Then again this does not matter as there is no link as i said in my first point.
As Lyath said
Quote
The story of Joseph (a prophet) in dealing with the subject cannot be ignored/overlooked as we are told that in their story are signs (127);
End QuoteMoreover, The Sons of Jacobs are very well aware of God's view of Stealing Corruption in Land
Peace
-
peace Belh
I will try to explain further based on your illustration.
If they caused X then they are Y.
If Y= Thieves
Then X= Stealing
And if X= Corruption in Land
Then Stealing = Corruption in LandLets look at the verse again
1273 They said By God, you know we have not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are not thieves!
The word and here is important.
Example
I walk into a town in which they hate chefs and violence with my friends and i say
By God, you know we have not come to cause violance in the land and we are not chefs.Violence and chef are unrelated but the sentence makes sense. From the sentence you can tell that me and my friends know that in this town they don't like violence and chefs.
If instead of and we had for then we can say there is a link between violence and chef. Here's the sentence again with for in place of and
By God, you know we have not come to cause violance in the land for we are not chefs.Now there's a link
In that statement by one of jacob's sons, we can conclude that the sons believe that the land that they have just entered, dislike corruption and thieves. However we cannot say the two are related from that.
As Lyath said
Quote
The story of Joseph (a prophet) in dealing with the subject cannot be ignored/overlooked as we are told that in their story are signs (127);
End QuoteI take it you agree with this then. I hold to my view which i said in my last post.
Moreover, The Sons of Jacobs are very well aware of God's view of Stealing Corruption in Land
From the Quran alone, i can only say that they know that the land that they have entered are against
- Corruption in the land
- thieves
If you see anything wrong in that please let me know.
-
peace Belh
Lets look at the verse again
1273 They said By God, you know we have not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are not thieves!
The word and here is important.
Example
I walk into a town in which they hate chefs and violence with my friends and i say
By God, you know we have not come to cause violance in the land and we are not chefs.Violence and chef are unrelated but the sentence makes sense. From the sentence you can tell that me and my friends know that in this town they don't like violence and chefs.
If instead of and we had for then we can say there is a link between violence and chef. Here's the sentence again with for in place of and
By God, you know we have not come to cause violance in the land for we are not chefs.Now there's a link
In that statement by one of jacob's sons, we can conclude that the sons believe that the land that they have just entered, dislike corruption and thieves. However we cannot say the two are related from that.
I take it you agree with this then. I hold to my view which i said in my last post.
From the Quran alone, i can only say that they know that the land that they have entered are against
- Corruption in the land
- thieves
If you see anything wrong in that please let me know.
Peace,
As I told you before, Humans' Logic can deffer; and therefore, it is not sound all the time.
Anyway, I do not have anymore information to ad...Let us leave for the reader to decide.
May God Increase our Wisdom.
Peace -
Peace,
As I told you before, Humans' Logic can deffer; and therefore, it is not sound all the time.
Anyway, I do not have anymore information to ad...Let us leave for the reader to decide.
May God Increase our Wisdom.
Peacehandshake
Ok then.
May God guide us prpeace
-
peace BelH,
First, did I say Believing or Submitting?
second, can you tell us about your Definition of "Moslem"?Sorry for the belated reply. I haven't checked this thread in a while.
It does not matter to me which you choose, either "believing" or "submitting". Please show us any verse in the entire Quran that says to be "muslim" one must submit to it.
I will probably not read this thread, so feel free to personal message me your evidence.
-
peace BelH,
Sorry for the belated reply. I haven't checked this thread in a while.
It does not matter to me which you choose, either "believing" or "submitting". Please show us any verse in the entire Quran that says to be "muslim" one must submit to it.
I will probably not read this thread, so feel free to personal message me your evidence.
Peace all,
Wakas, I answered your question before in this thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16735.0
-
Peace,
This is getting ridiculous - since when have people become objects that can be stolen like common goods!
You have 2 crimes here
- Kidnapping
- Rape
For the 1st crime, the punishment is equivalence - so a prison term will suffice (16126)
For the 2nd crime, the punishment is prison or to be punished severely (1225)Peace Layth,
Your thoughts on this matter are inconsistent with reality, history and the Quran.
In slavery, peoples (humans) are treated as common goods. This is a fact! They become the property of the master who owns them. They can be sold, abused, given away to other masters, and many more unthinkable crimes. And you don?t have to go too far back in time to witness slavery in action (US). And don?t forget the enslavement of children of Israel in Egypt by Pharos.
Another example is Abu Bakar freeing the slave Bilal. If Bilal could be bought with money, he could have been stolen without paying any money. Thus my unmarried 19 years old girl example is not ridiculous al all. It?s just that you failed take a simple reality into account in your analysis of the situation. Just think of the girl as a slave girl. So, what is the punishment for stealing in this case?
The Quran testifies to the existence of slavery as well. Therefore, the answer to your question ?since when have people become objects that can be stolen like common goods!? is from the very beginning. Slavery still exists in third world in some form or other.
-
Peace Layth,
Your thoughts on this matter are inconsistent with reality, history and the Quran.
In slavery, peoples (humans) are treated as common goods. This is a fact! They become the property of the master who owns them. They can be sold, abused, given away to other masters, and many more unthinkable crimes. And you don?t have to go too far back in time to witness slavery in action (US). And don?t forget the enslavement of children of Israel in Egypt by Pharos.
Another example is Abu Bakar freeing the slave Bilal. If Bilal could be bought with money, he could have been stolen without paying any money. Thus my unmarried 19 years old girl example is not ridiculous al all. It?s just that you failed take a simple reality into account in your analysis of the situation. Just think of the girl as a slave girl. So, what is the punishment for stealing in this case?
The Quran testifies to the existence of slavery as well. Therefore, the answer to your question ?since when have people become objects that can be stolen like common goods!? is from the very beginning. Slavery still exists in third world in some form or other.
12.19. Then there came a caravan of travellers they sent their water-carrier (for water), and he let down his bucket (into the well)...He said "Ah there! Good news! Here is a (fine) young man!" So they concealed him as a treasure! But Allah knoweth well all that they do!
19.20. The (Brethren) sold him for a miserable price, for a few dirhams counted out in such low estimation did they hold him!
So this attitude was there but what does this has to do with the Quran.
