PART 2 of 2

Higgins Error.(cont)

38 "cut off the thief's hand"

39. But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Now Higgins conclusion is in error, because he fails to link the understanding to a PREVIOUS verse which unlocks the true meaning.

i.e. v 34 "Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

Now.. to fully understand THAT you have to read v 33 which speaks about cutting off hands etc.

THE IMPORTANT bit in all that is.. "repent BEFORE they fall into your power" ie.. if they are busted/caught as thieves they WILL have their hands cut off there is NO chance to repent once caught.

SUMMARY The meaning of Surah 5 as it stands is “Islam is a religious code which stipulates the mutilation of human beings for crimes or for opposing Islam (Mohammad) and the only way to avoid this mutilation being carried out is to repent BEFORE falling into the hands of the Muslims”

Thus, a full consideration of the overall context of Surah 5 would have revealed to Justice Higgins that the claims made by the 2 Dannies were absolutely correct.

Pericles..There you have it..chapter, verse, paragraph by numbers links to the judgement etc etc..

So my claim is utterly validated “Justice Higgins did take the use of verses into serious consideration” and you also might learn both from his approach and also by his mistake about how to interpret documents.

Sometimes dealing with your logical meanderings, Boaz, is like having something rather unpleasant on your shoe. No matter how much you scrape it on the grass, there's still that smell that hangs around.

>>So my claim is utterly validated “Justice Higgins did take the use of verses into serious consideration”<<

Your claim is entirely validated, Boaz.

There is no doubt about it, Justice Higgins did indeed "take the use of verses into serious consideration."

But does it not occur to you place this next to the fact that his approach was rejected by the Supreme Court?

So your claim is validated. But it is wrong.

Let's take a simple example.

Adam Goodes is reported for striking Matt Thomas. He gets to the tribunal and is cleared.

You would report this as "Goodes is a villain, he struck Thomas".

In evidence, you could produce the reporting umpires written testimony... "at the senter bouns the said player did wack the Port bloke, I sor im do it"... as vindication of your position.

But history will record it as a non-event.

In the same way, I'm afraid you cannot use a non-event to support your position.

To put it all back into context, my position remains that:

"I have absolutely no interest in, nor do I share your enthusiasm for, random excerpts from an ancient text. You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me."

Higgins tried to use random excerpts from ancient text to build a judgment against the Dannys, i.e. to use them as evidence.

He failed to make this stick. The Supreme Court threw out his decision.

Which part of this is not clear to you?

Random excerpts from an ancient text are not evidence, Boaz.

It doesn't matter how many different interpretations you find.

They are all invalid.

Instead of entering into the pissing competition that is "I can cherry pick better than you".

I asked Polly an simple straightforward question as a direct result of his cherry picking of the quran to justify his (Polly's) opinion of Islam. I do believe that Islam is a religion that needs to move into the 21st Century, but so does Christianity, therefore the pot and kettle game is entirely moot.

As Poly rarely (ever?) exhibits the qualities that a follower of Christianity is expected to espouse, I made the following observation and subsequent question:

"People like Polycarp actually having me wishing that there is a judgmental, vengeful god out there. Because, Polly, while I am aware that everyone has their faults, you actually seem to revel in your denigration of others. You never admit to making mistakes and judge everyone according to your own narrow definition of christianity.

If your god is real he will be judging those who bully, judge and belittle. Do you believe a simple confession will absolve you from all the hatred and hurt you foment?

Do you consider yourself to be meek, mild, loving and accepting of all others on this world?"

OK, I admit I won't be holding my breath on achieving an answer - let alone an honest answer, but occasionally I like to demonstrate Polly's inability for self-reflection. And (sorry Pericles) the posts are very boring. I like to play...intelligently...but play nonetheless.

Dear Fractelle... humble apologies for not answering your question.

I'll try to do that now. (I was so immersed in that 'stuff on the shoe' experience (i.e. dealing with Pericles errors) that I failed to observe your final line.

QUESTION: Do you consider yourself to be meek, mild, loving and accepting of all others on this world?

"meek" Dictionary: 1. Showing patience and humility; gentle.
"Mild" Dictionary: 1. Moderate in type, degree, effect, or force:

You can judge :) Yesterday I had an encounter with a socialist activist. We discussed a particular issue. Our engagement was vigorous but polite, but when I sought to refer to actual evidence to decide the issue, he began a predictable rant.
"whoooo the F@#K do you think you are?" "You are F*@Khead" Well.. I COULD have responded with "Take your pick.. lose the language or lose some teeth" :) but I decided to just endure it and respond with "I'm a member of a democracy.. an Australian citizen etc etc..without any particular anger on my face"
You can call it as you see it.

"Loving"? hmmm yep.. I do have a love for others, including enemies, but that does not mean if a person has a difference of view I won't engage with them and seek to resolve it with evidence. But what you see here is not the complete 'me'. You might ask this 'How many rude or insulting names do I call people here? I have mentioned to you that I felt your 'argument/position' was fractured.. which is a synonym for 'unreasonable/without foundation' I don't consider that an insult to you. Hey..I'll give you a hug anytime :) (this is where you say eeeeuuuuwwwwwarrgggghcough etc:)

"Accepting of all Others" There are various levels of acceptance.
Social acceptance and friendliness is different from accepting someone into fellowship at Church. I will be just like anyone else on the social level but if a bloke said "I'm a Christian gay and God loves me doing what I love"...I'm afraid it just would not work.
I won't accept a Satanist on any level.

Boaz,

You keep contradicting yourself regarding your intent. On one hand you say that people search and examine the truth before they convert. On the other you acknowledge that many people convert to Islam even though for every pro-Islamic website there is a 100 Islamophobic sites.

Then again you complain that the few pro-Islam sites don’t criticise Islam.

I don't believe your intent otherwise you would not be publishing 5000+ comments in over 3 years of 350 words on a secular site such as OLO. Its like authoring a dictionary. Similar to peicles and other rational posters, I believe you are hear to incite fear. If we don't learn from history we can commit the same errors. Remember the brainwashed Michael Dennis Rohan story?

The part of your belief system that incites fear, hate and inevitably violence against a minority is illegal in Australia. I believe if anyone is convicted of violence and was ever found talking to a boaz david, Polycarp or one of his brethren, you should all be joined in the court room as accomplices.

Peace,

PERICLES ERROR

1/Higgins tried to use random excerpts from ancient text to build a judgment against the Dannys, i.e. to use them as evidence.
2/He failed to make this stick. The Supreme Court threw out his decision.

3/Which part of this is not clear to you?

4/Random excerpts from an ancient text are not evidence, Boaz.

5/It doesn't matter how many different interpretations you find.

6/They are all invalid.

Ok.. time to sort your your woolly thinking and replace it with the clear, reasoned and evidence based variety.

1/ NO... Higgins did NOT try to use random excerpts he CRITICIZED the use of them by the Dannies and tried to correct them by highlighting that they deliberately left out what seemed to him to be a decisive verse. In so doing he himself neglected a more important one in the bigger context which actually DID decide the issue.

2/ He did not fail to make 'that' stick... he failed on other grounds. i.e..that Section 8 of the RRT2001 (NOT the verses from the Quran) was wrongly intepreted by justice Higgins...

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2006/284.html

3/ Which part of that is not clear to you?

4/ There is a difference between RANDOM texts and carefully selected texts which validly support or negate a position. Given that a particular faith is BASED on the text in question, it thus requires us to correctly understand and apply that text appropriately to the real world. If the behavior of Australian institutions is subject to our constitution, then we are obliged to UNDERSTAND that constitution. You don't have to be an Australian Citizen to understand it!

When Muslims (RMIT Islamic Society) quote Quran 33:21 “"Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent EXAMPLE to follow.."
http://rmitis.org.au/articles.php?id=3

Then... only a dimwit of the first order in total denial would reject the idea that close scrutiny and criticism of ANYthing pertaining to Mohammad's life, actions, teaching etc is entirely valid.
Not just the sugarcoated snippits on that page.

He ordered THIS for Ka'ab Bin Al Ashraf. Buyeri just followed his example.
http://fullmetalcynic.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/theo_van_gogh_murdered_by_religion_of_peace.jpg