Atheism

[The_Jinx]

Re: Atheism

@Zapatista

Sorry, I usually ignore your posts…

Yes you definitely do. That’s why you replied to my post here and at other places. It just goes to show that you avoid answering to what you do not have a proper answer for:snooty:

@Zapatista

The term which is used in this verse is “aydiyahuma”. And I’m pretty sure that you know that this is not the proper term for hand in Arabic. Hand in Arabic is Yad, Yadan are the two hands, where “Aydiyahuma” is the plural of the word Hand, used in dual form. So you tell me, how many hands does a human being have that his “Aydiyahuma” (More than three hands) should be cut off? So don’t you think there might be a meaning other than cutting off more than three hands? Maybe a figurative meaning such as power, wealth, property etc.?

What a great made-up interpretation. plural for word Hand is Hands and even two hands are plural.

Please prove that two hands are not plural of one hand

For your reference, I found an old reply of psyah for your reading pleasure:)

@psyah

Peace again Ask99

I can Alhumdulillah confirm this:

There are three forms in Arabic:

Singular, Dual, Plural

for hand this is:

Yad, Yadaani, Aydi

However, this also applies to the belonging attributes …

Him = hu
Her = hun
them both = huma
them plural = hum

Aidyahuma comes from the ‘them both’ side with the end construct, but the aidya does not come from aydi, it comes fro mthe yadaani. The ya at the end of aidya belongs to the yad and thus you have aani become aidi when it swings around to the other side as a prefix and connects the whole together as aidyahuma.

This means; The two hands (in total) of them both.

Not “the (three or more) hands”

The proof of this is that hands only come in pairs and if it meant both of both of their hands then is ould say them seperately because Arabic does not let you combine them in to one word unless you say it as a dual with two hands in total.

My dad told me this who teaches Arabic grammar.

[Zapatista]

Re: Atheism

Don’t you get the meaning of usually? And yes I do usually ignore your posts. Don’t flatter yourself.

@""The_Jinx""

plural for word Hand is Hands and even two hands are plural.

Please prove that two hands are not plural of one hand

We are talking about Arabic here, not English.

@""The_Jinx""

For your reference, I found an old reply of psyah for your reading pleasure:)

It’s thief though, not thieves. Male and female thief, both have one pair of hands. And even If the meaning is as how Psyah is explaining it, both hands have to be cut off then. LOL Getting even better now. How nice would that be for the thief for the rest of his life. Especially if he changes into a better human being later on. Old jewish law that is…

@The Holy Quran Surah 5 Verse 39

If one repents after committing this crime and reforms, GOD redeems him. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

Its meaning contains possibility of both hands of both or one hand of each.

Allah (SWT) may forgive a person, but the penalty must still be given, if it qualifies for hadd.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@Zapatista

@psyah

Please post evidence that the victims get compensated for their loss. Also does the thief have to compensate them? So they have to get their arm cut off and also pay back what they stole from the victim? Please tell, thanks.

Peace Zapatista

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=fac_articles&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.uk%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fengagedscholarship.csuohio.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1000%2526context%253Dfac_articles%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm2q7MwzmDbEZ98YREgLQgW1xb8V8Q%26oi%3Dscholarr%26ei%3Dt1zST7SQIsPo-gaSmYSlBA%26ved%3D0CAwQgAMoADAA#search="http%3A%2F%2Fengagedscholarship.csuohio.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1000%26context%3Dfac_articles"

This is a decent article on the subject … It is not done by a Muslim, but it is quite fair to the subject, but not entirely. Usually the case is that hadd is not given to a person who returns the goods and hadd cannot be given to one who returns te goods before conviction.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

It's funny but it appears so far that any "man-made" aspect to the religion is actually relaxing the penalty and not enforcing it ... However, since I am Sunni, I am bound to the belief that ijma of scholars is binding on me.

If we remove the sophistication that scholars of the past had put in place, we would end up making Taliban ... In fact that is what the Taliban did do.

The wisdom in the Qur'an being vocal on the very limits is so we can understand the field within those limits.

[The_Jinx]

Re: Atheism

@Zapatista

Don’t you get the meaning of usually? And yes I do usually ignore your posts. Don’t flatter yourself.

and that usually is when you can not answer and yes I am flattering myself and you’re President of USA

@Zapatista

We are talking about Arabic here, not English.

didn’t ignore this comment made on a lighter note, eh?

@Zapatista

It’s thief though, not thieves. Male and female thief, both have one pair of hands. And even If the meaning is as how Psyah is explaining it, both hands have to be cut off then. LOL Getting even better now. How nice would that be for the thief for the rest of his life. Especially if he changes into a better human being later on. Old jewish law that is…

To answer, following is correct in my understanding.

@psyah

Its meaning contains possibility of both hands of both or one hand of each.

Allah (SWT) may forgive a person, but the penalty must still be given, if it qualifies for hadd.

[chaibiskut]

Re: Atheism

Fadl's argument isn't a side discussion. He's directly challenging the amputation punishment, citing Ahmed Ali. He's going further than suggesting we "relax or not enforce the penalty," he's questioning it altogether.

Anyway, if thread patterns are anything to go by, these 'debates' go nowhere. We're all here to validate our myopia, not learn anything new.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

^ Peace chaibiskut

I thought you meant ‘fadl’ as in the ‘fadl’ of Allah, that is why I called it a side-discussion. After your last post I realise you are are talking about, Dr. Abou Fadl …

Yes … I just read his article Khaled Abou El Fadl: Islam and the Challenge of Democracy

What he writes is as you say his opinion, but neither he nor Ahmed Ali negate the severing of the hand in the manner you state … They merely bring in to the equation another way of fulfilling the intent of the verse … You see they can’t possibly negate the actual physical severing, because there are ample Hadith on this matter that show how these verses were interpreted by the best people of this ummah, i.e. the salaf. and the holy prophet himself (SAW).

[chaibiskut]

Re: Atheism

Actually Ahmed Ali does negate it, from the citation provided. But traditionalists will object to his contemporary translation and accuse him of taking liberties with it. At the end of the day, there's no consensus in Islam regarding the constitution of Shariah or its correct interpretation. One can argue the amputation punishment is akin to Islamic sex laws, impossible to enforce but symbolically instructive. Sometimes morality is the only point. I believe contradictory interpretations of the Quran/hadiths is the reason why this punishment is uncommon even in conservative interpretations of Islamic law.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

Peace chaibiskut

I read the article and in the footnote of number 26 there it does state that Ahmed Ali feels "severing their hands" does not mean it literally, but then he states that classical jurists did eventually sever limbs anyway.

I hope it is clear to you that our difference of opinion yours and mine is purely one of what is possible and what is not. So I am not arguing for severing of the hand in every case, nor am I saying we should seek out opportunities to do it, but I have to defend the truth of the verse, hadith and what has classically happened to be the case. There is indeed consensus in this matter, but what it is you are saying is unanimity which I agree there is not. However, we are people of ijma, i.e. the criteria for our Islamic outlook is on the majority opinion of scholars. And this is fitting with the warning about the end times about which way will be the right one.

We cannot possibly sideline the majority in favour of solitary voices because they appear to be apologetic or sweeter to our ears.

[rommel]

Re: Atheism

how did this topic divert from athiest believing nothing creates nothing to topic of cutting hand of a thief????

complete diversion

[Dr.LuLworth]

Re: Atheism

@Zhenghe

Atheism

the belief that there was nothing
and nothing happened to nothing

and then nothing magically exploded for no reason,
creating everything and then a bunch of everything
magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever
into self replicating bits

which then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense

Consider this: 4.5 million years of evolution in one picture 4,5 Million years of human evolution in one picture - Imgur . If your quran was true, there would be only one type of skull present here.

*there is a chimpanzee skull in here too. Technically, a modern chimp is not part of human evolution. We didn’t evolve from chimpanzees, BOTH evolved from a common ancestor. So a chimp skull doesn’t belong there, unless its 4.5 million years old. I know its a technicality, but its the misconception that evolution is linear, which is probably why a lot of people don’t think it makes sense.

now, bring forth your empirical evidence of magical giants, and 900 year old prophets who collected pairs of polar bears and playtupus, and ant eaters on one boat - and how that stacks up against any of this.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@Dr.LuLworth

Consider this: 4.5 million years of evolution in one picture 4,5 Million years of human evolution in one picture - Imgur . **If your quran was true, there would be only one type of skull present here.

**
*there is a chimpanzee skull in here too. Technically, a modern chimp is not part of human evolution. We didn’t evolve from chimpanzees, BOTH evolved from a common ancestor. So a chimp skull doesn’t belong there, unless its 4.5 million years old. I know its a technicality, but its the misconception that evolution is linear, which is probably why a lot of people don’t think it makes sense.

now, bring forth your empirical evidence of magical giants, and 900 year old prophets who collected pairs of polar bears and playtupus, and ant eaters on one boat - and how that stacks up against any of this.

Peace Doc

What makes you think that the Qur’an supports the idea of “one type of skull” - I’m sure you have heard the verse that states “We … made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another…” Surat Al-Hujurat [49:13] - The Noble Qur’an - ??? ???.

Here is a picutre of the differences in skull formation of contemporary races:
THEORY OF UNIVERSE: skulls of races

And to add a bit of scientific magic look at these skulls:
CultCase: 5 Mysterious Skulls: Dare They Be Called, Human?

In fact there are many skulls of genetically deformed people even to this day … Also there are many primates that live today and many that have lived in the past that are not human.

By picking a sample of skulls and putting them around a table proves nothing. It is totally a belief system and the more this is done the more we realise the desperation of the atheistic evolutionists.

[Dr.LuLworth]

Re: Atheism

@psyah

Peace Doc

What makes you think that the Qur’an supports the idea of “one type of skull” - I’m sure you have heard the verse that states “We … made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another…” Surat Al-Hujurat [49:13] - The Noble Qur’an - ??? ???..

you can cutely think what you want but your verse says nothing about neaderthals, pygmies or any other hominid species. otherwise, what I’m trying to say is that your quran is a terrible source of proof in this case. heh

@psyah

In fact there are many skulls of genetically deformed people even to this day … Also there are many primates that live today and many that have lived in the past that are not human.

By picking a sample of skulls and putting them around a table proves nothing. It is totally a belief system and the more this is done the more we realise the desperation of the atheistic evolutionists.

i will not comment on your personal opinions on evolution, lol. i’ve provided proof of what humanity has gathered so far, not my opinion.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@Dr.LuLworth

you can cutely think what you want but your verse says nothing about neaderthals, pygmies or any other hominid species. otherwise, what I’m trying to say is that your quran is a terrible source of proof in this case. heh

i will not comment on your personal opinions on evolution, lol. i’ve provided proof of what humanity has gathered so far, not my opinion.

Pygmies are humans dude …

Neanderthals are a guess at being something pre-human - they may be something totally human for all we know.

Now you have changed your tune - first you say “if the Qur’an were true, there would be only one type of skull present” and I asked you where you got that idea from the Qur’an … and now you say that the Qur’an is a “terrible source of proof” … which one is it? Make your mind up and be consistent please … Doc!

[queer]

Re: Atheism

so where do neanderthals fit in to your religious beliefs, psyah?

[Krypton]

Re: Atheism

if you can fit neanderthals into your beliefs…then, you take evolution as fact and you don’t even know it

[The_Jinx]

Re: Atheism

It’s a part of belief in Islam that before the creation of Prophet Adam (the very first human being), this earth was ruled by nations of Jins for many thousands of years.

The neandarthals could very well be the skeletons of those jins ruled on the face of this earth. At the most those skeletons could very well be a species of apes at that time. After all, skeletons of monkeys even today look similar to humans. Those apes did not change to humans for sure.

Or perhaps some did and therefore, their progeny is trying to prove that we all came from them

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

Peace Jinx

Jinn are made of smokeless fire ... we are made of clay like the animals of this world ...

[The_Jinx]

Re: Atheism

@psyah

Peace Jinx

Jinn are made of smokeless fire ... we are made of clay like the animals of this world ...

true (ref: 55:15) but while we are made of clay (sand and water), can we find sand in our flesh and skin? Allah created us to shape like this. I believe that Jinn can have the same body structure as us even though their origin is different.