More to ponder about the disasters of twisting texts.
I want to get back to Imam Bujayrimi. In the first part of his "definition" he has the crucial phrase "every law" to clarify things. He either believes all are possible which is a manifest contradiction. (I mean you can't have a definition that allows some application and one that is universal in application) or he is just listing a series of possibilites and not supporting any. If the latter is the case then Maajid is again misquoting by claiming that one of the possibilities is his position.
It just gets worse for Maajid doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment