Does the quran guarantee equal human rights for all people...?
-
Peace phoenix;I empathise with your points,.....So why are folks trying to pass off belief,quran,god etc...as OBJECTIVE,and demanding objective evidence for SUBJECTIVE faith issues........? Its like debating which ice-cream is the best.......(mint for me..... Cheesy.)
mint is terrible!
We might eat different ice creams, but it has the same effect on us.
peace
-
Peace arnoldyasin....Yes its called faith.....subjective faith.....So please dont pass it off as Objective or scientific.......We have our own minds my friend....
Peace,and take it easy...My believe in God comes being objective, i used to be an atheist. My faith in the Quran i attained from objectiveness as i didn't believe in it, and my patience for holding on to my faith is because every time it showed some verses were approached wrong. So i would call it more, giving it the benefit of the doubt. So yes, it is still objective approach for as far faith allows that, that i agree. But i'm still waiting on the other posts that are contradicting as the aboce example was not contradicting.
Peace and love
-
Peace arnoldyasin....Yes its called faith.....subjective faith.....So please dont pass it off as Objective or scientific.......We have our own minds my friend....
Peace,and take it easy...This is what we call 'whats good for the goose isn't for the gander' or in modern terms 'enquirers diversionary tactics for self-aggrandisement'.
He calls our faith in al-quraan subjective. It is.
What of his faith in the evaluation that certain punishments in al-quraan are barbaric? Is that objective ? It's not objective by any stretch. It's subjective and because Enquirer stands by it regardless, it's dogma.
I suggest to fellow Free-minders. Watch out for the little things he tries to slip past you. The man is full of tricks but totally devoid of substance.
-
Peace mquran. So you finally admit your belief/faith in quran is SUBJECTIVE.......?
Why the need for evidence and debates then............?
Im off shopping....take care....... -
And now it is enquirer's turn to proof he is not subjective.....that is gonna be impossible for him....
-
Peace mquran;To play along with your style,lets say for arguments sake that a person reads into the quran 'hand-chopping' (which is not what i said about you,which shows you didnt understand my post,yet screamed i didnt answer your question.......... .) show me how you PROVE he hasnt read into the quran with that interpretation......
Ok. But once again I remind you. If im right, acknowledge and if im wrong, prove it.
A person who reads 5/38 as 'cut off hands' will have to reconcile how 'aydihuma' (3 or more hands) will have to be applied to a thief (saariq) which is one person. Further, he has to concile the fact that al-quraan is kitaaban mutashabih mathaany (a book with repetitive similarities) and in the story of Yusuf, the same phraseology is used to mean the curtailling of resources (12-75 is a key verse for this where the same word is used). Lastly, al-quraan prescribes a punishment of equivalency and hand-chopping doesn't equate damage caused by theft.
Now, let us see how you will defend your hand-choppers thesis.
seriously my friend,you are on a hiding to nothing here....You dont know where i am coming from,you dont have the un-emotional rationale or skills to refute these topics......save yourself the energy young man.....leave it to the qualified people...
Spare us your cheerleading. It's pathetic.
-
The subject under discussion is "Does the quran guarantee human rights for all people?" A rebuttal has been presented and in response we have these points
The first point is that very few people of a 'quran only' methodology will agree with mqurans final conclusion regarding human rights based on the quran
This is appeal to majority, not relevant and no rebuttal.Also quranically believers should not be-friend disbelievers,should not love disbelievers (even if they are family.) should be harsh against dis-believers,etc,etc...Now you guys full well know the verses i am talking about (328,etc..),
All the problematic verses should be posted one by one and discussed.now if someone like mquran wants to modify,re-interpret and reform the translations from the ORIGINAL arabic linguistic meanings.....then thats fine with me....But then how can you say the quran has an OBJECTIVE/TIMELESS/CLEAR message when only mquran and a few others can de-crypt its messages AGAINST the actual meaning of the arabic.....?
Please show how it is unquranic. Give a detailed response with the ORIGINAL arabic linguistic meanings and how they are derived, thus actually proving the other wrong.If i was to say that peoples assertions that their is no verse in the quran that allows hand-choppings were true,then i would be IGNORING the arabic meaning of the quran AND the thousands of people that say hand-chopping is allowed from the quran......
Please show how yad only means hands, the thousands of people is NO criteria.So,based on that analysis,i hold that mqurans and others views on several verses are not actually from NORMAL quranic interpretations but from their own READING into the text.....
That is not a valid analysis. The subject is what the quran says not how 'many' people interpret it as. If it is proved NOT in the quran then we have a rebuttal otherwise the people are the focus and the book is disregarded.There is little rhyme or reason,or pragmatism to many of these interpretations......
Please show how other than the 1000 people think so.I mean,some believe the prophets are not real people but archetypes (which is fine by me.) while others believe very strongly that the prophets are REAL people that existed......Is a person not allowed to question a persons READING into a text when they come up with mutually contradictory,and non-exclusive principles from the SAME book as other Quran only people....?
Subject is what the quran says so anyone trying to disprove the quran should stick to what it says and whether it has any validity from the book itself.In the final phase i would say that it seems apparent that idolisation of a book is DEFINATELY against the tenents of the quran.....Yet it is being done......
Please show how.So i suggest people are reading into the quran what they want.......
Subject is what the quran says.where is the linguistic breakdown of verses,the cross references,the reasonable consensus,the rationale,and the clear verses on universal human rights for all people regardless of beliefs.........?
A rebuttal has been given, if it is NOT reasonable/logical/clear from the quran, please show how.If one feels that they are unsure about something in the quran, please say it and not bring it up again unless they can disprove it categorically from the quran that it does not exist as such.
-
Peace Arnoldyasin,
I started to believe in the Quran because of my objective approach, and i still believe it now because of that approach. Just because i don't throw the Quran away when an understanding seems to go against humane thinking i'm stuck? No, it means i have patience, till now it has been always the wrong approach that gave this un-humane answer, after research it always showed the real answer was hidden and is more amazing then ever expected. This is not blind, this is called faith.
why do you need faith if your approach is objective and you have found proofs (finding the real answer that was hidden before)? When faith is required it is because there are no objective proofs, or viveversa, if there are objective proofs, faith is not needed. Or didn't I understand your words about faith?
-
Yes, you didn't understand them.
-
Peace mquran;To play along with your style,lets say for arguments sake that a person reads into the quran 'hand-chopping' (which is not what i said about you,which shows you didnt understand my post,yet screamed i didnt answer your question.......... .) show me how you PROVE he hasnt read into the quran with that interpretation......
Ok. But once again I remind you. If im right, acknowledge and if im wrong, prove it.
A person who reads 5/38 as 'cut off hands' will have to reconcile how 'aydihuma' (3 or more hands) will have to be applied to a thief (saariq) which is one person.
This is the funny part of YOUR scholarly approach. 538 talks about saariqu (male thief) AND saariqatu (female thief), hence the 'aydhi' (hands), 'huma' (their) and 'katao' (cut off) has been prefectly applied. This verse is not just talking about one person and your understanding in moot.
Further, he has to concile the fact that al-quraan is kitaaban mutashabih mathaany (a book with repetitive similarities) and in the story of Yusuf, the same phraseology is used to mean the curtailling of resources (12-75 is a key verse for this where the same word is used).
1275 doesn't talk about "cutting of hands" as punishment for thief. This wil also be part of my debate. Besides, mutashabih doesn't mean repetitive either.
Spare us your cheerleading. It's pathetic.
Oouch, look who's talking.
-
This is the funny part of YOUR scholarly approach. 538 talks about saariqu (male thief) AND saariqatu (female thief), hence the 'aydhi' (hands), 'huma' (their) and 'katao' (cut off) has been prefectly applied. This verse is not just talking about one person and your understanding in moot.
You must have spent a lot of time in the madressa when you were younger. You're more brainwashed than the sunnis themselves
Fa'aqtau aydi is for EACH of them, hence why I didn't mention the saariqah. Please see all occurences of 'huma' in al-quraan and you will see that there's no 'breaking down' but rather the 'huma' refers to each person.
1275 doesn't talk about "cutting of hands" as punishment for thief.
You're right, it doesn't and as usual, you've completely missed the point. I wish you would learn to read and stop wasting my time. 12/75 is an explanation of what happens to a saariq and no, it say cut off his hands.
This wil also be part of my debate. Besides, mutashabih doesn't mean repetitive either.
You're right, it doesn't. It means 'containing tashbih' as I quoted above. Once again, do go for a refresher course in reading . You're so eager to how good you are that you're letting your comprehension skills become worse than usual.
Spare us your cheerleading. It's pathetic. Oouch, look who's talking.
Your sitcom was axed after the pilot, wasn't it?
-
Fa'aqtau aydi is for EACH of them, hence why I didn't mention the saariqah. Please see all occurences of 'huma' in al-quraan and you will see that there's no 'breaking down' but rather the 'huma' refers to each person.
Really ???
Could you explain this to Saladin in this thread ?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=3399.0Peace
-
Fa'aqtau aydi is for EACH of them, hence why I didn't mention the saariqah. Please see all occurences of 'huma' in al-quraan and you will see that there's no 'breaking down' but rather the 'huma' refers to each person.
Really ???
Could you explain this to Saladin in this thread ?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=3399.0Peace
The guy is duckin around and ashamed to respond.
Fa'aqtau aydi is for EACH of them, hence why I didn't mention the saariqah.
rotfl -
DanishThe guy is duckin around and ashamed to respond
I'm waiting for YOUR response. Saladin I talk to regularly on msn. Are still reading the dung-sura and so a little busy?
And JM is waiting for YOURS. ignore
-
And JM is waiting for YOURS.
It's ok Danish. I can see why you refused the moderators decision. You've been hiding behind fake stories a lot, like the Sunnis. I guess you can take the boy out of sunnistan, but not sunnistan out of the boy..Thanks for your time.
-
And JM is waiting for YOURS.
It's ok Danish. I can see why you refused the moderators decision. You've been hiding behind fake stories a lot, like the Sunnis. I guess you can take the boy out of sunnistan, but not sunnistan out of the boy..Thanks for your time.
Twisting and ducking around again. Answer JM and I shall see how far you go in understanding 538.
-
Peace,
You proof that Yad cannot be translated as abilities/resources, also throughout the Quran it is used for Allah's hand, by thus refering to His abilities as He has no physical hands, also 1231 shows the same that it doesn't say amputate as verse 539 speaks of repentance and reform, as reform is unneccasry when one has no hands anymore to steal, it can only mean cut of the abilities/resources to steal. Stop refering to other people's thread and answer the above please.