The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[A m e n r i a]

Do you believe Islamic people in the past or present killing another person who isn't muslim/islamic is justified, to people in this thread who are Islamic, considering they've done many things, along with imprison christians because "oh muhammad or something". Examples of that being U.S. Merchants being imprisoned by Barbary pirates in the late 1700's and early 1800's, before the Barbary Wars.

It's not. Killing people for their faith alone never is (unless of course, said faith worships demons, which is why we decapitate witches). As for your example, it's probably because they're pirates, and well, not supposed to be people with outstanding morals.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Oh wow. They get stuff? That then belongs to their husband by right of their husband "excelling" over them. That's literally how it works.

And idk how to break this to you, mate, but being "treated well" usually means not being beaten. Which is explicitly permitted in Islam. But oh well cos they have a right to their own money, amirite

No, she gets half everything he earned when they were married and doesn't share it with anyone (unless she wants to). That's literally how it works.

As for these "beatings", the husband wouldn't cause enough damage to result in any mark (bruises count) and even then, it's a concept modernists (like myself) disagree with, if not outright reject.

Lol wat. That's not how mahr works at all. Mahr doesn't even have to be money ffs. It's not even negotiated by the bride. The wali negotiates it for her. This isn't even to mention that in the Hanafi school, for instance, if a woman initiates a divorce (no matter what her husband did), she forfeits all of the mahr. Not to mention that the mahr is often paid in deferred amounts post-marriage that still leaves the bride reliant and dependent on her husband for financial support like a fucking child.

And as it's been explained a million fucking times before and should be found in your own common sense, BEATINGS AREN'T "BETTER" JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T LEAVE A MARK. People can be hit pretty fuckin hard and not leave a mark, mate. And even if we accept the whole "it can't cause pain" shit, it's still fucked up and weird that a husband can hit their wife to make them submit to his will and be obedient.

And your own acceptance or rejection of this is irrelevant considering I had been talking to Amin and addressing his specific form of Islam when you decided to interject.

[A m e n r i a]

No, she gets half everything he earned when they were married and doesn't share it with anyone (unless she wants to). That's literally how it works.

As for these "beatings", the husband wouldn't cause enough damage to result in any mark (bruises count) and even then, it's a concept modernists (like myself) disagree with, if not outright reject.

Lol wat. That's not how mahr works at all. Mahr doesn't even have to be money ffs. It's not even negotiated by the bride. The wali negotiates it for her. This isn't even to mention that in the Hanafi school, for instance, if a woman initiates a divorce (no matter what her husband did), she forfeits all of the mahr. Not to mention that the mahr is often paid in deferred amounts post-marriage that still leaves the bride reliant and dependent on her husband for financial support like a fucking child.

And as it's been explained a million fucking times before and should be found in your own common sense, BEATINGS AREN'T "BETTER" JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T LEAVE A MARK. People can be hit pretty fuckin hard and not leave a mark, mate. And even if we accept the whole "it can't cause pain" shit, it's still fucked up and weird that a husband can hit their wife to make them submit to his will and be obedient.

And your own acceptance or rejection of this is irrelevant considering I had been talking to Amin and addressing his specific form of Islam when you decided to interject.

The wife isn't (always) dependent, but the husband does still pay child support nonetheless. And think about being "hit" without actually being hurt. I don't think you'd mind. Oh, and it's not "fucked up" because the sole determiner of omniversal morality gave that rule. But alas, Amin, you're on your own with this one.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Lol wat. That's not how mahr works at all. Mahr doesn't even have to be money ffs. It's not even negotiated by the bride. The wali negotiates it for her. This isn't even to mention that in the Hanafi school, for instance, if a woman initiates a divorce (no matter what her husband did), she forfeits all of the mahr. Not to mention that the mahr is often paid in deferred amounts post-marriage that still leaves the bride reliant and dependent on her husband for financial support like a fucking child.

And as it's been explained a million fucking times before and should be found in your own common sense, BEATINGS AREN'T "BETTER" JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T LEAVE A MARK. People can be hit pretty fuckin hard and not leave a mark, mate. And even if we accept the whole "it can't cause pain" shit, it's still fucked up and weird that a husband can hit their wife to make them submit to his will and be obedient.

And your own acceptance or rejection of this is irrelevant considering I had been talking to Amin and addressing his specific form of Islam when you decided to interject.

The wife isn't (always) dependent, but the husband does still pay child support nonetheless. And think about being "hit" without actually being hurt. I don't think you'd mind. Oh, and it's not "fucked up" because the sole determiner of omniversal morality gave that rule. But alas, Amin, you're on your own with this one.

Sorry to break it to you but the demon you worship is not the originator of morality. If it is, it sure does a shit job at it.

And yeah, I'd mind if someone that I didn't want to "hit" me without hurting me. If I am arguing with someone during an argument and they push me or poke me hard, yeah I'm gonna fucking mind.

[Ayytaly]

What I've noticed about Islam is that, throughout history since the the Medieval times, it has always been the religion of autocracy. Countries and dynasties such as the Ottoman empire, Libya, Iraq, and Persia were Islamic through and through, but all of them flourished because they had either a powerful monarch (Suleyman, Shah Mohammed Revi) or a dictator (Hussein, Gaddafi) on command, akin to Muhammed and his status as a sort of warlord, which goes on par with Islam's favor towards patriarchy. Nevertheless, Libya became the richest nation in Africa, Persia was far more progressive and scientifically advanced than the rest of the Indo-Aryan world, and Iraq actually had benefits for their citizens.

Once those regimes were disestablished and overthrown, however, chaos and religious fanaticism occurred. Iran replaced Revi with some British agent that looked like Sean Connery, Libya was left in ruins, and sectationalism resurged, leading to more and more terrorism. Islam, to me, is a volatile religion in itself, but the West is 100% to blame for removing what kept it under control in the first place: Patriarchal totalitarianism.

Thanks, oil.

[A m e n r i a]

The wife isn't (always) dependent, but the husband does still pay child support nonetheless. And think about being "hit" without actually being hurt. I don't think you'd mind. Oh, and it's not "fucked up" because the sole determiner of omniversal morality gave that rule. But alas, Amin, you're on your own with this one.

Sorry to break it to you but the demon you worship is not the originator of morality. If it is, it sure does a shit job at it.

And yeah, I'd mind if someone that I didn't want to "hit" me without hurting me. If I am arguing with someone during an argument and they push me or poke me hard, yeah I'm gonna fucking mind.

> Allah
> Demon

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Sorry to break it to you but the demon you worship is not the originator of morality. If it is, it sure does a shit job at it.

And yeah, I'd mind if someone that I didn't want to "hit" me without hurting me. If I am arguing with someone during an argument and they push me or poke me hard, yeah I'm gonna fucking mind.

> Allah
> Demon

*shrugs* I mean, what makes him less of one than my gods, in your eyes? Cos he said so?

[A m e n r i a]

> Allah
> Demon

*shrugs* I mean, what makes him less of one than my gods, in your eyes? Cos he said so?

For one, Allah is omnipotent and doesn't need anything else, but let's not get there.

It would make more sense if you said "cosmic entity" (which ain't exactly wrong), or "cosmic horror story villain" (still makes little sense, but at least more).

[Sahansahiye Iran]

*shrugs* I mean, what makes him less of one than my gods, in your eyes? Cos he said so?

For one, Allah is omnipotent and doesn't need anything else, but let's not get there.

It would make more sense if you said "cosmic entity" (which ain't exactly wrong), or "cosmic horror story villain" (still makes little sense, but at least more).

Lol and how do you know he's omnipotent? Cos he said so?

No, I said what I meant and I meant what I said. He's a daeva and should be treated as such.

[The Grims]

*shrugs* I mean, what makes him less of one than my gods, in your eyes? Cos he said so?

For one, Allah is omnipotent and doesn't need anything else, but let's not get there.

That's still "cause he said so" and not an intelligent argument
But since this is the Idlamic Discussion thread I doubt he will be able to convince many that Allah is a demon.

[Ayytaly]

For one, Allah is omnipotent and doesn't need anything else, but let's not get there.

That's still "cause he said so" and not an intelligent argument
But since this is the Idlamic Discussion thread I doubt he will be able to convince many that Allah is a demon.

What's the etymology for Allah? Can't be the same as Yahweh, no?

[Sahansahiye Iran]

That's still "cause he said so" and not an intelligent argument
But since this is the Idlamic Discussion thread I doubt he will be able to convince many that Allah is a demon.

What's the etymology for Allah? Can't be the same as Yahweh, no?

"The God" in Arabic. "al-" means the and "lah" means god.

Yahweh is different in that that was his name when he part of the regular Canaanite pantheon before the monotheistic/henotheistic Jews broke off to do their own thing.

[The Grims]

That's still "cause he said so" and not an intelligent argument
But since this is the Idlamic Discussion thread I doubt he will be able to convince many that Allah is a demon.

What's the etymology for Allah? Can't be the same as Yahweh, no?

Considering Yahweh is not omnipotent, that would actually hurt the argument

[United Muscovite Nations]

For one, Allah is omnipotent and doesn't need anything else, but let's not get there.

It would make more sense if you said "cosmic entity" (which ain't exactly wrong), or "cosmic horror story villain" (still makes little sense, but at least more).

Lol and how do you know he's omnipotent? Cos he said so?

No, I said what I meant and I meant what I said. He's a daeva and should be treated as such.

Religious discussion threads should keep discussion in the context of the religion being discussed, otherwise it's not really a religious discussion thread.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Lol and how do you know he's omnipotent? Cos he said so?

No, I said what I meant and I meant what I said. He's a daeva and should be treated as such.

Religious discussion threads should keep discussion in the context of the religion being discussed, otherwise it's not really a religious discussion thread.

I mean, it's really not hard to see that it's in context, UMN. I'm specifically talking about the Islamic god so in what way is that not in context? Nice interjection, tho.

[Kowani]

Sorry to break it to you but the demon you worship is not the originator of morality. If it is, it sure does a shit job at it.

And yeah, I'd mind if someone that I didn't want to "hit" me without hurting me. If I am arguing with someone during an argument and they push me or poke me hard, yeah I'm gonna fucking mind.

> Allah
> Demon

It may surprise you, but non-Muslims may consider Allah to be actively malevolent.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Religious discussion threads should keep discussion in the context of the religion being discussed, otherwise it's not really a religious discussion thread.

I mean, it's really not hard to see that it's in context, UMN. I'm specifically talking about the Islamic god so in what way is that not in context? Nice interjection, tho.

It's not in the context of the religion because it's not from within Islamic perspectives. There's no way to say Allah isn't omnipotent within the bounds of Islamic theology.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

I mean, it's really not hard to see that it's in context, UMN. I'm specifically talking about the Islamic god so in what way is that not in context? Nice interjection, tho.

It's not in the context of the religion because it's not from within Islamic perspectives. There's no way to say Allah isn't omnipotent within the bounds of Islamic theology.

If we had to talk about everything from an Islamic perspective in this thread, it'd be an echo chamber and dead within a week. This line of conversation is done unless you really feel the need to continue with this useless bit of hypocrisy. Unless you want to now argue this from an Islamic perspective.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Daily reminder that Allah is but one of many Arabic deities

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not in the context of the religion because it's not from within Islamic perspectives. There's no way to say Allah isn't omnipotent within the bounds of Islamic theology.

If we had to talk about everything from an Islamic perspective in this thread, it'd be an echo chamber and dead within a week. This line of conversation is done unless you really feel the need to continue with this useless bit of hypocrisy. Unless you want to now argue this from an Islamic perspective.

The CDT discusses things from a Christian perspective and it's not dead. All I'm doing is pointing out that you're just an apostate who has nothing better to do than harass believers in their own thread.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

If we had to talk about everything from an Islamic perspective in this thread, it'd be an echo chamber and dead within a week. This line of conversation is done unless you really feel the need to continue with this useless bit of hypocrisy. Unless you want to now argue this from an Islamic perspective.

The CDT discusses things from a Christian perspective and it's not dead. All I'm doing is pointing out that you're just an apostate who has nothing better to do than harass believers in their own thread.

Lol that's because there's actual variation in the CDT and more than just one extremist and a few token others there. Nice try, tho.

And you're right. I'm a sad boi. How dare I argue against the religion that has oppressed my own for centuries and would have me executed or tortured? It's almost like people argue against shit ideologies

[United Muscovite Nations]

The CDT discusses things from a Christian perspective and it's not dead. All I'm doing is pointing out that you're just an apostate who has nothing better to do than harass believers in their own thread.

Lol that's because there's actual variation in the CDT and more than just one extremist and a few token others there. Nice try, tho.

And you're right. I'm a sad boi. How dare I argue against the religion that has oppressed my own for centuries and would have me executed or tortured? It's almost like people argue against shit ideologies

Get your own thread for it instead of hijacking other people's thread for it.

Most of the CDT is agreement. It's a discussion thread, not a debate thread.

[Kowani]

If we had to talk about everything from an Islamic perspective in this thread, it'd be an echo chamber and dead within a week. This line of conversation is done unless you really feel the need to continue with this useless bit of hypocrisy. Unless you want to now argue this from an Islamic perspective.

The CDT discusses things from a Christian perspective and it's not dead. All I'm doing is pointing out that you're just an apostate who has nothing better to do than harass believers in their own thread.

The CDT has a larger community, variety among believers, and only one extremist.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Lol that's because there's actual variation in the CDT and more than just one extremist and a few token others there. Nice try, tho.

And you're right. I'm a sad boi. How dare I argue against the religion that has oppressed my own for centuries and would have me executed or tortured? It's almost like people argue against shit ideologies

Get your own thread for it instead of hijacking other people's thread for it.

Most of the CDT is agreement. It's a discussion thread, not a debate thread.

Report me for threadjacking if you believe I have done so or quit wannabe modding. This is done.

[Kowani]

Lol that's because there's actual variation in the CDT and more than just one extremist and a few token others there. Nice try, tho.

And you're right. I'm a sad boi. How dare I argue against the religion that has oppressed my own for centuries and would have me executed or tortured? It's almost like people argue against shit ideologies

Get your own thread for it instead of hijacking other people's thread for it.

Most of the CDT is agreement. It's a discussion thread, not a debate thread.

And North Korea is democratic.