Messages

It was not an attack really, it was more to make HP_TECH reflect on what he was saying in response to that women who are raped should keep the rapist's child in the uterus. Now I cannot rape HP_TECH and make him pregnant can I, unless he can surgically insert a uterus into his male body or in some other way become a female. However, others were apparently taking it emotionally including HP_TECH who did not respond on the moral aspect of the analogy.

But logical fallacies I have not, I have made sure I am not logically incorrect through much contemplation before I open my mouth. My whole life I pressure hard on a high level of logic.

However, I think you should somehow get involved in the discussions using logic instead of some stupid understanding from the 7th century and use your intelligence.

Also I gave my input on the verses in discussion previously.

We are talking about chapter 24. Please read it if you haven't and then repeat what you just said. No offence, but what you or huruf have just said have zero logical or textual basis in accordance with the chapter full of punishments and also verses on following the messenger.

Logic my ass...

As for an eye for an eye verse then that is verse 5:45 and it is an ultimate test for the believer as the verse also talks about forgiving in charity (zakat) as an option, which most people won't abide to but would rather punish someone or demand retribution in turn.

You are somewhat correct, but just because something allegedly says a thing does not mean it has any truth in it. I give a damned about what some writing says if it is against logic. Logic prevails over what some sources say.

I gave reasons for why it is stupid to require four witnesses among other things. The traditional interpretation is stupid. It is stupid why you should punish an adulterer with lashes when the old law said eye for an eye.

Traditional interpretation of Quran does condemn all of those to Hell regardless of them doing good things.

Except they had no such forensic knowledge or skills back then.

There are verses about mandatory chastity in regards to guarding one's private parts and glances to remain modest, so obviously rape and fornication are forbidden. But there is no punishment prescribed for possible rape.

There is however an allaged punishment of 100 lashes for adulterers, who I suppose are married.

Well, she can say she did not commit adultery but instead it was rape, as many women often tell nowadays, as pointed out by progressive1993. How in such case one is to be judged and who will be judged?

Punishments in Qur'an are so vague and ambiguous, I am almost certain they are of translational bias and one certainly "needs" "sunna", "hadith" and the "sharia" in order to prescribe punishments.

That is why it is more logical not to punish physically at all if someone commits adultery. No one is physically hurt by an adultery and the old law says "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", meaning the punishment for the adulterer should be mental since the suffering is mental for the victim. It is because of the victim(s) of the adultery there is a reason to punish at all if it is a must.

If you are raped, it is possible to often find traces of sperm in a woman and analyze it and track it to the rapist. In that case no other testimony than the woman is required to convict the rapist, but of course having additional witnesses help in determining the sinister motive of the rapist.

Even in the past, requiring more than one additional witness is just illogical and where the four witnesses come from is not consistent.

Be well
Qarael Amenuel

But for rpe there is no need to find four witnesses, that is a crime, like murder or theft.

It would not be a loophole it would be a complete rebellion against justice and the Qur'an and for which any other means of evidence is admissible. 

In that case it is not a natural difficulty but an act of corruption all right. The question then would nto be the Qur'an but the state of a society for which justice simply is not such but another means of oppression. That is a rotten society.

Salaam

Absolutely right.

Are you mentally ill? I asked for your definitions and your views. I almost expected a deranged answer from you. You dont know me. Alas, you will get judged - I will not get caught up with you.

What kind of answer is that? Huruf answered it quite well.

There is also the option of using the mind and apply sound logic.

I do not see how anything points at all to a virgin birth. I just do not see it. But I see that we have all been indoctrinated into thinking it a virgin virth and therefore we tend to insert everything we read into that set up. We are nto unconditioned. If we get rid of tha preconception I honestly cannot see that anything points more to a virgin than to any other possibility. 

But like what you yourself admit, we are left in darkness about how the conception came to happen, which corroborates the fact that that is of no importance whatsoever nor serve us for any purposed. Therefore it is of no consequence and a waste for us, because the lesson is not there.

Salaam

It ought to be a virgin birth, I am not a sexist but in Semitic tradition you do not refer to the mother when you refer to a child but the father and so if Eysua had a father it would have been Eysua ibn [Father's Name]. Why is because basically a man and woman become as one body upon marriage and they take the same name (much like the tradition of the woman taking the man's last name). So if you refer to the wife you say wife [Man's name] much like Mrs [Man's name] in English.

It is not necessary to take the man's name though, but either they can take a completely new name together or even take the woman's name, but the point is this is because of the ancient law of "man and woman created He/She them and they shall cleave together and become as one body/flesh".

But in the case of Miryem, she is most probably the sole parent in this case being in reference alone as "ibn Miryem", unless her husband took her name as family name and it was a kind of ancient feminist gesture. The probability is unfortunately relatively low, however I like if there is focus on the women for I deem them as powerful if not more powerful than men in many cases and many men speaking of women should be ashamed of themselves and their being.

Nevertheless, to us it does matter extremely little whether Eysua was conceived supernaturally or not, that is not at all the important matter of his coming but his being as a living example of a pure person is.

Be well
Qarael Amenuel