Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Proctopeo]

You'll find that the exact boundaries of what constitutes a sin and what does not are... not exactly drawn. They're non-existent, in fact, for the most part. And the concept of "sin" almost never applies to the same degree when the other guy is not a Muslim.

Non-existant? It's what you'll be judged with in the afterlife. If anything, that's the only objective notion of right and wrong. Regardless of culture, location, and lineage, the angels will write down everything you did and whether it's naughty or nice.

Santa Claus is coming to town!

[A m e n r i a]

Non-existant? It's what you'll be judged with in the afterlife. If anything, that's the only objective notion of right and wrong. Regardless of culture, location, and lineage, the angels will write down everything you did and whether it's naughty or nice.

Santa Claus is coming to town!

Yea kinda like Santa except the gifts and punishments come from someone else.

[North German Realm]

You'll find that the exact boundaries of what constitutes a sin and what does not are... not exactly drawn. They're non-existent, in fact, for the most part. And the concept of "sin" almost never applies to the same degree when the other guy is not a Muslim.

Non-existant? It's what you'll be judged with in the afterlife. If anything, that's the only objective notion of right and wrong. Regardless of culture, location, and lineage, the angels will write down everything you did and whether it's naughty or nice.

Once again, you act like you can't read. The boundaries of what constitutes a sin in Islam are not set-in-stone. Lying (which is generally a cardinal sin in almost every religion) is not just "not a sin" but "actually encouraged" by Islam in certain situations (after all, if your very god is the Khayr-ul-maakerin, makr can't be a bad thing, amirite?). Same with murder, fucking rape (at least under certain situations), etc. etc. But of course, as a Muslim you know that already.

[Afghanistan Punjab and Kashmir]

Non-existant? It's what you'll be judged with in the afterlife. If anything, that's the only objective notion of right and wrong. Regardless of culture, location, and lineage, the angels will write down everything you did and whether it's naughty or nice.

Once again, you act like you can't read. The boundaries of what constitutes a sin in Islam are not set-in-stone. Lying (which is generally a cardinal sin in almost every religion) is not just "not a sin" but "actually encouraged" by Islam in certain situations (after all, if your very god is the Khayr-ul-maakerin, makr can't be a bad thing, amirite?). Same with murder, fucking rape (at least under certain situations), etc. etc. But of course, as a Muslim you know that already.

1- lying.
Allowed in war, same as Old Testament and vedas.
Lying to convert typically frowned upon and I believe haram.
2- ‘murder’
Killing enemy soldiers in war is allowed.
Same as Catholicism, Judaism, Sikhism and some Hindu texts such as the Mahabharata. This also the same in contemporary German, American, British, Swedish and Italian Law and was supported by Nelson Mandela if to protect a racial group that was suffering violence and oppression.

Muhammad outlawed the killing of civilians such as women and children and in Islam rulers and commanders have a duty to it possible prevents crimes or their subordinates.(so watch out Dubya, LOL).

3- f____ing rape
No where in the Quran does it say any women is lawful to any man “without her consent”, I own a Quran at home which I read frequently.

Women have rights whether queens (see 33.32) or slaves(see 24:33).

It is interesting that verse specifically talks about lack of consent, implying that is part of the reason it is wrong and makes it worse.

Furthermore it was a crime to slap a female slave in the face so rape must have been a severe crime.
The same Surah says no marriage must happen first, before lying with a slave.

[Napkizemlja]

Once again, you act like you can't read. The boundaries of what constitutes a sin in Islam are not set-in-stone. Lying (which is generally a cardinal sin in almost every religion) is not just "not a sin" but "actually encouraged" by Islam in certain situations (after all, if your very god is the Khayr-ul-maakerin, makr can't be a bad thing, amirite?). Same with murder, fucking rape (at least under certain situations), etc. etc. But of course, as a Muslim you know that already.

1- lying.
Allowed in war, same as Old Testament and vedas.
Lying to convert typically frowned upon and I believe haram.
2- ‘murder’
Killing enemy soldiers in war is allowed.
Same as Catholicism, Judaism, Sikhism and some Hindu texts such as the Mahabharata. This also the same in contemporary German, American, British, Swedish and Italian Law and was supported by Nelson Mandela if to protect a racial group that was suffering violence and oppression.

Muhammad outlawed the killing of civilians such as women and children and in Islam rulers and commanders have a duty to it possible prevents crimes or their subordinates.(so watch out Dubya, LOL).

3- f____ing rape
No where in the Quran does it say any women is lawful to any man “without her consent”, I own a Quran at home which I read frequently.

Women have rights whether queens (see 33.32) or slaves(see 24:33).

It is interesting that verse specifically talks about lack of consent, implying that is part of the reason it is wrong and makes it worse.

Furthermore it was a crime to slap a female slave in the face so rape must have been a severe crime.
The same Surah says no marriage must happen first, before lying with a slave.

There are numerous accounts of horrendous treatment and rape of slaves in Islamic realms throughout history. In fact, the Islamic slave trade disproportionately targeted women over men for things like sexual slavery. Do you honestly think slaves are capable of giving consent?
"In less than I take to talk about it, these unfortunate creatures — 84 of them, wended their way into the village where we were. Some of them, the eldest, were women from 20 to 22 years of age, and there were youths from 18 to 19, but the large majority was made up of boys and girls from 7 years to 14 or 15 years of age. A more terrible scene than these men, women and children, I do not think I ever came across. To say that they were emaciated would not give you an idea of what human beings can undergo under certain circumstances. “Each of them had his neck in a large forked stick, weigh ing from 30 to 40 pounds, and five or six feet long, cut with a fork at the end of it where the branches of a tree spread out. “T he women were tethered with bark thongs, which are, of all things, the most cruel to be tied with. Of course they are soft and supple when first striped off the trees, but a few hours in the sun make them about as hard as the iron round packing-cases. The little children were fastened by thongs to their mothers. “As we passed along the path which these slaves had travelled, I was shown a spot in the bushes where a poor woman the day before, unable to keep on the march, and likely to hinder it, was cut down by the axe of one of these slave drivers. “We went on further and were shown a p lace where a child lay. It had been been recently born, and its mother was unable to carry it from debility and exhaustion; so the slave trader had taken this little infant by its feet and dashed its brains out against one of the trees and thrown it in there.”- David Livingstone's encounter with an Arab slave caravan in Africa.

[Bear Stearns]

thanks guys

[North German Realm]

1- lying.
Allowed in war, same as Old Testament and vedas.
Lying to convert typically frowned upon and I believe haram.
2- ‘murder’
Killing enemy soldiers in war is allowed.
Same as Catholicism, Judaism, Sikhism and some Hindu texts such as the Mahabharata. This also the same in contemporary German, American, British, Swedish and Italian Law and was supported by Nelson Mandela if to protect a racial group that was suffering violence and oppression.

Muhammad outlawed the killing of civilians such as women and children and in Islam rulers and commanders have a duty to it possible prevents crimes or their subordinates.(so watch out Dubya, LOL).

3- f____ing rape
No where in the Quran does it say any women is lawful to any man “without her consent”, I own a Quran at home which I read frequently.

Women have rights whether queens (see 33.32) or slaves(see 24:33).

It is interesting that verse specifically talks about lack of consent, implying that is part of the reason it is wrong and makes it worse.

Furthermore it was a crime to slap a female slave in the face so rape must have been a severe crime.
The same Surah says no marriage must happen first, before lying with a slave.

There are numerous accounts of horrendous treatment and rape of slaves in Islamic realms throughout history. In fact, the Islamic slave trade disproportionately targeted women over men for things like sexual slavery. Do you honestly think slaves are capable of giving consent?
"In less than I take to talk about it, these unfortunate creatures — 84 of them, wended their way into the village where we were. Some of them, the eldest, were women from 20 to 22 years of age, and there were youths from 18 to 19, but the large majority was made up of boys and girls from 7 years to 14 or 15 years of age. A more terrible scene than these men, women and children, I do not think I ever came across. To say that they were emaciated would not give you an idea of what human beings can undergo under certain circumstances. “Each of them had his neck in a large forked stick, weigh ing from 30 to 40 pounds, and five or six feet long, cut with a fork at the end of it where the branches of a tree spread out. “T he women were tethered with bark thongs, which are, of all things, the most cruel to be tied with. Of course they are soft and supple when first striped off the trees, but a few hours in the sun make them about as hard as the iron round packing-cases. The little children were fastened by thongs to their mothers. “As we passed along the path which these slaves had travelled, I was shown a spot in the bushes where a poor woman the day before, unable to keep on the march, and likely to hinder it, was cut down by the axe of one of these slave drivers. “We went on further and were shown a p lace where a child lay. It had been been recently born, and its mother was unable to carry it from debility and exhaustion; so the slave trader had taken this little infant by its feet and dashed its brains out against one of the trees and thrown it in there.”- David Livingstone's encounter with an Arab slave caravan in Africa.

There's also the fact that the concept of 'making a woman halaal for you' is something that certain clergy are given the right to do in times of war, depending on which denomination you talk about. It's not common -and it was certainly not out of ordinary when the concept was invented- but doesn't make it any less horrendous.

[A m e n r i a]

1- lying.
Allowed in war, same as Old Testament and vedas.
Lying to convert typically frowned upon and I believe haram.
2- ‘murder’
Killing enemy soldiers in war is allowed.
Same as Catholicism, Judaism, Sikhism and some Hindu texts such as the Mahabharata. This also the same in contemporary German, American, British, Swedish and Italian Law and was supported by Nelson Mandela if to protect a racial group that was suffering violence and oppression.

Muhammad outlawed the killing of civilians such as women and children and in Islam rulers and commanders have a duty to it possible prevents crimes or their subordinates.(so watch out Dubya, LOL).

3- f____ing rape
No where in the Quran does it say any women is lawful to any man “without her consent”, I own a Quran at home which I read frequently.

Women have rights whether queens (see 33.32) or slaves(see 24:33).

It is interesting that verse specifically talks about lack of consent, implying that is part of the reason it is wrong and makes it worse.

Furthermore it was a crime to slap a female slave in the face so rape must have been a severe crime.
The same Surah says no marriage must happen first, before lying with a slave.

There are numerous accounts of horrendous treatment and rape of slaves in Islamic realms throughout history. In fact, the Islamic slave trade disproportionately targeted women over men for things like sexual slavery. Do you honestly think slaves are capable of giving consent?
"In less than I take to talk about it, these unfortunate creatures — 84 of them, wended their way into the village where we were. Some of them, the eldest, were women from 20 to 22 years of age, and there were youths from 18 to 19, but the large majority was made up of boys and girls from 7 years to 14 or 15 years of age. A more terrible scene than these men, women and children, I do not think I ever came across. To say that they were emaciated would not give you an idea of what human beings can undergo under certain circumstances. “Each of them had his neck in a large forked stick, weigh ing from 30 to 40 pounds, and five or six feet long, cut with a fork at the end of it where the branches of a tree spread out. “T he women were tethered with bark thongs, which are, of all things, the most cruel to be tied with. Of course they are soft and supple when first striped off the trees, but a few hours in the sun make them about as hard as the iron round packing-cases. The little children were fastened by thongs to their mothers. “As we passed along the path which these slaves had travelled, I was shown a spot in the bushes where a poor woman the day before, unable to keep on the march, and likely to hinder it, was cut down by the axe of one of these slave drivers. “We went on further and were shown a p lace where a child lay. It had been been recently born, and its mother was unable to carry it from debility and exhaustion; so the slave trader had taken this little infant by its feet and dashed its brains out against one of the trees and thrown it in there.”- David Livingstone's encounter with an Arab slave caravan in Africa.

For the nth time, history is irrelevant. The misapplication and misinterpretation of principles change nothing of the principles itself.

[Afghanistan Punjab and Kashmir]

There are numerous accounts of horrendous treatment and rape of slaves in Islamic realms throughout history. In fact, the Islamic slave trade disproportionately targeted women over men for things like sexual slavery. Do you honestly think slaves are capable of giving consent?
"In less than I take to talk about it, these unfortunate creatures — 84 of them, wended their way into the village where we were. Some of them, the eldest, were women from 20 to 22 years of age, and there were youths from 18 to 19, but the large majority was made up of boys and girls from 7 years to 14 or 15 years of age. A more terrible scene than these men, women and children, I do not think I ever came across. To say that they were emaciated would not give you an idea of what human beings can undergo under certain circumstances. “Each of them had his neck in a large forked stick, weigh ing from 30 to 40 pounds, and five or six feet long, cut with a fork at the end of it where the branches of a tree spread out. “T he women were tethered with bark thongs, which are, of all things, the most cruel to be tied with. Of course they are soft and supple when first striped off the trees, but a few hours in the sun make them about as hard as the iron round packing-cases. The little children were fastened by thongs to their mothers. “As we passed along the path which these slaves had travelled, I was shown a spot in the bushes where a poor woman the day before, unable to keep on the march, and likely to hinder it, was cut down by the axe of one of these slave drivers. “We went on further and were shown a p lace where a child lay. It had been been recently born, and its mother was unable to carry it from debility and exhaustion; so the slave trader had taken this little infant by its feet and dashed its brains out against one of the trees and thrown it in there.”- David Livingstone's encounter with an Arab slave caravan in Africa.

There's also the fact that the concept of 'making a woman halaal for you' is something that certain clergy are given the right to do in times of war, depending on which denomination you talk about. It's not common -and it was certainly not out of ordinary when the concept was invented- but doesn't make it any less horrendous.

This along with the ‘slaves can’t consent’ argument makes no sense.
Yes masters had power over their slaves which meant they could force them to but how does that mean every example of intercourse was rape?
What if they made it clear they weren’t forced to(IE saying something like “do you wish to lie with me, Roxelana or do you feel a bit shy at the moment?” Rather than “Sally get in the f_ing house you nigger!”)
See the difference?

[The Grims]

There's also the fact that the concept of 'making a woman halaal for you' is something that certain clergy are given the right to do in times of war, depending on which denomination you talk about. It's not common -and it was certainly not out of ordinary when the concept was invented- but doesn't make it any less horrendous.

This along with the ‘slaves can’t consent’ argument makes no sense.
Yes masters had power over their slaves which meant they could force them to but how does that mean every example of intercourse was rape?
What if they made it clear they weren’t forced to(IE saying something like “do you wish to lie with me, Roxelana or do you feel a bit shy at the moment?” Rather than “Sally get in the f_ing house you nigger!”)
See the difference?

Not really. One would in both cases be hesitant to say no to the owner who controls their life.

[Afghanistan Punjab and Kashmir]

This along with the ‘slaves can’t consent’ argument makes no sense.
Yes masters had power over their slaves which meant they could force them to but how does that mean every example of intercourse was rape?
What if they made it clear they weren’t forced to(IE saying something like “do you wish to lie with me, Roxelana or do you feel a bit shy at the moment?” Rather than “Sally get in the f_ing house you nigger!”)
See the difference?

Not really. One would in both cases be hesitant to say no to the owner who controls their life.

If the owner in the first case didn’t want to give their slave a choice why would they imply it was a question not a command?

[Afghanistan Punjab and Kashmir]

There are numerous accounts of horrendous treatment and rape of slaves in Islamic realms throughout history. In fact, the Islamic slave trade disproportionately targeted women over men for things like sexual slavery. Do you honestly think slaves are capable of giving consent?
"In less than I take to talk about it, these unfortunate creatures — 84 of them, wended their way into the village where we were. Some of them, the eldest, were women from 20 to 22 years of age, and there were youths from 18 to 19, but the large majority was made up of boys and girls from 7 years to 14 or 15 years of age. A more terrible scene than these men, women and children, I do not think I ever came across. To say that they were emaciated would not give you an idea of what human beings can undergo under certain circumstances. “Each of them had his neck in a large forked stick, weigh ing from 30 to 40 pounds, and five or six feet long, cut with a fork at the end of it where the branches of a tree spread out. “T he women were tethered with bark thongs, which are, of all things, the most cruel to be tied with. Of course they are soft and supple when first striped off the trees, but a few hours in the sun make them about as hard as the iron round packing-cases. The little children were fastened by thongs to their mothers. “As we passed along the path which these slaves had travelled, I was shown a spot in the bushes where a poor woman the day before, unable to keep on the march, and likely to hinder it, was cut down by the axe of one of these slave drivers. “We went on further and were shown a p lace where a child lay. It had been been recently born, and its mother was unable to carry it from debility and exhaustion; so the slave trader had taken this little infant by its feet and dashed its brains out against one of the trees and thrown it in there.”- David Livingstone's encounter with an Arab slave caravan in Africa.

For the nth time, history is irrelevant. The misapplication and misinterpretation of principles change nothing of the principles itself.

Next time someone says that mention Jamaican slave trade, the opium wars, Serb rape and genocide or anything else of the like condoned by ‘Christian’ rulers.

[North German Realm]

For the nth time, history is irrelevant. The misapplication and misinterpretation of principles change nothing of the principles itself.

Next time someone says that mention Jamaican slave trade, the opium wars, Serb rape and genocide or anything else of the like condoned by ‘Christian’ rulers.

This thread is about Islam. Nobody who argues against Islam is arguing from a Christian position (Even if they themselves are Christian). Try again.

[Afghanistan Punjab and Kashmir]

Not really. One would in both cases be hesitant to say no to the owner who controls their life.

If the owner in the first case didn’t want to give their slave a choice why would they imply it was a question not a command?

Wasn’t answered just so you know

[Afghanistan Punjab and Kashmir]

Next time someone says that mention Jamaican slave trade, the opium wars, Serb rape and genocide or anything else of the like condoned by ‘Christian’ rulers.

This thread is about Islam. Nobody who argues against Islam is arguing from a Christian position (Even if they themselves are Christian). Try again.

Oh you misunderstood what I am doing, here is what I am doing:
If X (a religion) is responsible for whatever rulers of X nations do
then Christianity is responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the mass rape and genocide committed by Serbia and the imperialism(and arguably narco-terrorism) of the Opium Wars.
Christianity is not responsible for those things, therefore, Islam is not responsible for the details of the Arab slave simple because it happened in Muslim nations.

It’s a syllogism:
If A then B
A
therefore
B

[The Alma Mater]

This thread is about Islam. Nobody who argues against Islam is arguing from a Christian position (Even if they themselves are Christian). Try again.

Oh you misunderstood what I am doing, here is what I am doing:
If X (a religion) is responsible for whatever rulers of X nations do
then Christianity is responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the mass rape and genocide committed by Serbia and the imperialism(and arguably narco-terrorism) of the Opium Wars.

All correct, yes.

[North German Realm]

This thread is about Islam. Nobody who argues against Islam is arguing from a Christian position (Even if they themselves are Christian). Try again.

Oh you misunderstood what I am doing, here is what I am doing:
If X (a religion) is responsible for whatever rulers of X nations do
then Christianity is responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the mass rape and genocide committed by Serbia and the imperialism(and arguably narco-terrorism) of the Opium Wars.
Christianity is not responsible for those things, therefore, Islam is not responsible for the details of the Arab slave simple because it happened in Muslim nations.

It’s a syllogism:
If A then B
A
therefore
B

1- Apart from the very early stages of the trans-Atlantic Slave trade, none of the three you mentioned were done in the name of Christianity. Islam is specifically responsible for the Arab Slave Trade because it was done in the name of Islam. Islam isn't responsible for what Muslims do, unless it is done in the name of Islam.
2- Even if your statement was true, it would still be irrelevant. We are not debating "which was worse". We are debating about Islam in particular. What you are trying to do is whataboutism. and not a good form of it either.

[Afghanistan Punjab and Kashmir]

Oh you misunderstood what I am doing, here is what I am doing:
If X (a religion) is responsible for whatever rulers of X nations do
then Christianity is responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the mass rape and genocide committed by Serbia and the imperialism(and arguably narco-terrorism) of the Opium Wars.
Christianity is not responsible for those things, therefore, Islam is not responsible for the details of the Arab slave simple because it happened in Muslim nations.

It’s a syllogism:
If A then B
A
therefore
B

1- Apart from the very early stages of the trans-Atlantic Slave trade, none of the three you mentioned were done in the name of Christianity. Islam is specifically responsible for the Arab Slave Trade because it was done in the name of Islam. Islam isn't responsible for what Muslims do, unless it is done in the name of Islam.
2- Even if your statement was true, it would still be irrelevant. We are not debating "which was worse". We are debating about Islam in particular. What you are trying to do is whataboutism. and not a good form of it either.

The Serb orthodox bishops supported the Serb side.
Besides can you prove the Arab slave trade at that late stage was motivated by Islam?

I thought many African slaves by that point we’re Muslims themselves.
Besides the infanticide and rape were not religiously motivated.

[Kowani]

There's also the fact that the concept of 'making a woman halaal for you' is something that certain clergy are given the right to do in times of war, depending on which denomination you talk about. It's not common -and it was certainly not out of ordinary when the concept was invented- but doesn't make it any less horrendous.

This along with the ‘slaves can’t consent’ argument makes no sense.
Yes masters had power over their slaves which meant they could force them to but how does that mean every example of intercourse was rape?
What if they made it clear they weren’t forced to(IE saying something like “do you wish to lie with me, Roxelana or do you feel a bit shy at the moment?” Rather than “Sally get in the f_ing house you nigger!”)
See the difference?

It’s called power imbalance.

[A m e n r i a]

Oh you misunderstood what I am doing, here is what I am doing:
If X (a religion) is responsible for whatever rulers of X nations do
then Christianity is responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the mass rape and genocide committed by Serbia and the imperialism(and arguably narco-terrorism) of the Opium Wars.
Christianity is not responsible for those things, therefore, Islam is not responsible for the details of the Arab slave simple because it happened in Muslim nations.

It’s a syllogism:
If A then B
A
therefore
B

1- Apart from the very early stages of the trans-Atlantic Slave trade, none of the three you mentioned were done in the name of Christianity. Islam is specifically responsible for the Arab Slave Trade because it was done in the name of Islam. Islam isn't responsible for what Muslims do, unless it is done in the name of Islam.
2- Even if your statement was true, it would still be irrelevant. We are not debating "which was worse". We are debating about Islam in particular. What you are trying to do is whataboutism. and not a good form of it either.

Except it's done wrongly. Slaves are treated humanely in Islam. If you're a real Muslim, you won't be cruel to your slave(s). Thus, the "Islamic" slave trade isn't even Islamic in the first place.

[Afghanistan Punjab and Kashmir]

This along with the ‘slaves can’t consent’ argument makes no sense.
Yes masters had power over their slaves which meant they could force them to but how does that mean every example of intercourse was rape?
What if they made it clear they weren’t forced to(IE saying something like “do you wish to lie with me, Roxelana or do you feel a bit shy at the moment?” Rather than “Sally get in the f_ing house you nigger!”)
See the difference?

It’s called power imbalance.

There is a difference between power imbalance and rape.
Is the power imbalance used to coerce someone?

[A m e n r i a]

It’s called power imbalance.

There is a difference between power imbalance and rape.
Is the power imbalance used to coerce someone?

Could be. Maybe not in this case, but it is possible.

[Totally Not OEP]

Personally, I think Eastern Christianity is a better fit for Iran than Shitte Islam. Same for Egypt, given it's history there. Most of the rest of the Islamic makes sense for the most part, sans Lebanon.

[North German Realm]

Personally, I think Eastern Christianity is a better fit for Iran than Shitte Islam. Same for Egypt, given it's history there. Most of the rest of the Islamic makes sense for the most part, sans Lebanon.

I'd prefer a Manevite or Zoroastrian revivalism as a whole, with Chaldean Catholics, Syriac Christians, and the Armenian Apostolic Church each promoted among the people who've actually followed them historically (after the deislamification of Iran, of course)
Also a recompensation of the Jews who were fucking ethnically cleansed by the fascist Shiite government between 79 and '19, preferably at the expense of the Mosque.

[Jolthig]

Well guys, I'll be permanently leaving NS, but over the next year I may make some small exceptions like occasionally coming into TET or RPing. However, since leaving NSG (with the exception of this post since it is a declaration, and of course, TET), I've grown bored with NS. I hardly RP, and I haven't been arguing on online forums due to the fact it's a waste of time. Many of you have told me NSG will never be the same without me. While, I appreciate the feedback, I must do what I have to do. I wish to be more secluded, and away from public forums on social media in order to form a stronger connection with Allah just as those past Prophets and righteous people have secluded themselves from the world with the exception of worldly things that are necessary like taking care of family, job, etc. I'll be increasing my faith and knowledge. I already have many of you on other apps so we shall stay connected.

There are some of you who beg for me to stay, and others who praise me for leaving. But, know this, my conduct has changed. I feel arguing on debate forums is a waste of time, and rules that regulate posters' behavior does nothing to correct the enmity between the users who go at one another. They may obey the rules most of the time, but their hatred for one another remains. I do not wish to enable this kind of behavior for myself. Especially as a Muslim looking for a stronger connection with Allah, and for better well being of myself. On top of this, I feel being on social media publically, and giving out all my opinions plus arguing leads me down a bad path, and makes me have a social media ego. Islam values the destruction of the ego and not enabling it.

Instead, I must put the past behind, and go towards the future. I appreciate the discussions we've all had in the past but I also acknowledge the amount of bad faith posting I've helped to enable in the past; getting into feuds with a few NSGers or talking about drama privately about feuds between the most active NSGers. None of that is no longer of any benefit for me, or rather, I've only recently come to this conclusion.

To those who wish for me to stay, and have seen me come back in the past, I simply won't come back and be active again (with the exception of some possible pop ins in TET or occasional RPing), the last few times I attempted to leave was only because of a feud with one or two NSGers. This time, I've realized no matter what, and how I try to change my behavior on a public forum, the anger and hate that rises within me, stemming from the ego, remains regardless of how I approach things. The best thing to do is get away from environments that impede my progress. To be endlessly arguing on a public debate forum is in my opinion, unproductive. I found better things to do in life. This extends to FB and Twitter too.

But I have remained connected with many of you in other apps. I will also remain online on and off on this account for one more day so that everybody may have the chance to say goodbye to me publically and privately, but also if they wish to stay connected, for me to give them my contact information.

My discord # is AhmadiMuslim#9602 if any of you have discord. Sorry to all those wish for me to stay. I know, I had a huge impact on this forum, and I've tried numerous methods to curtail bad faith posting through my own example, but somehow, the environment finds away for me to do bad faith posting in a moment of weakness. Rules regulating a behavior of an individual simply isn't enough to stop drama or people hating on each other because when you have crowds of people in a gathering with radically differing views, no matter what, fights ensure. I am getting away as it is of no benefit for me to continuously talk about drama whether related to peoples differing views, politics, personalities, etc. As a Muslim, I must always strive to change my ways, and improve my weaknesses.

As for those who agree with me, let this be a good example to you, all, and I hope this post may be of benefit.

With this said, this is my last post in my 9 years on and off on NS, unless otherwise.

Assalaam o alakium wa rahmatullah wa barakatu, and god bless you all.