Reddit comments from July 2024

Definitely have to sit down and read this. Thanks for sharing. Fascinating

How do we deal with the following narrations and similar ones that seem to indicate intentional changes to words? Do you see such narrations as being invented later on to justify such changes? Or is that not what you are referring to regarding the consonantal skeleton?

أبو عبيد وابن الأنباري وابن المنذر – كما قال السيوطي - عن عون بن عبد الله أن ابن مسعود أقرأ رجلاً : (إن شجرة الزقوم طعام الأثيم) فقال الرجل : "طعام اليتيم" ، فرددها عليه ، فلم يستقم بها لسانه ، فقال : أتستطيع أن تقول : طعام الفاجر ؟ قال : نعم ، قال : فافعل .

وقد روي مثل ذلك أبي الدرداء رضي الله عنه ، أخرجه سعيد بن منصور وعبد بن حميد وابن جرير وابن المنذر والحاكم وصححه .

انظر : "الدر المنثور" للسيوطي (7/418)

On the authority of Awn b. Abdullah that ibn Mas'ud read to a man (The tree of Zaqūm will be the transgressors' [athīm] food). So the man said, "...[will be] the orphan's [yatīm] food." Then he [ibn Mas'ud] repeated it to him [to correct him], but his tongue wasn't able to say it correctly.

Due to that, he said, "Are you able to say 'the sinners' [fājir] food' [instead]?"

He said, "Yes."

He replied, "Then do so."

Reported by al-Suyuti, ibn al-Mundhir, and al-Hakim.

Do you hold that all the Uthmānic codices were exactly the same in the consonants or do you think he retained some differences in the ones he sent to different regions?

Might be important to learn considering the sub we are in

Not a knock on anyone but I honestly can't see how most of the stuff in this sub makes any sense without some prior background/study. Without Arabic you aren't even at the most rudimentary stage of Islamic studies, academic, critical, or traditional. If a person thinks they can grasp what's going on without Arabic it's quite a stretch IMO

Probably more interesting to see what has been written ABOUT Yazid than only Yazid's history. In particular I find attempts to justify some of his actions and bring him into the orthodox Sunni fold fascinating

Do you consider ibn Taymiyyah modern? Yazid apologetics have been going on in Sunni anti-Shi'a discourse since at least the middle ages. It's becoming increasingly radical (probably how it was during Yazid's age). It's like some Sunni theologians felt obligated to justify Yazid in some ways because of how fanatical the Shia were towards Ahl al-Bayt.

From what I've seen, Arab government-sponsored scholars are not shying away from Yazid and I've seen at least one blame Hussayn directly for his own death, justifying what Yazid did. Obviously the Harrah massacre is totally unconscionable.

I haven't read Baladhuri's biography but I'll definitely take a look.

Can you link to an example? Most of the discourse I've seen has dealt with Yazid because he's much more controversial. Sunnis have always had a generally good view of Mu'awiyyah. Is this related to Project 2030?

The theological works of the Ash'ari's and Maturidis hold that insulting any of the sahabah is haram and in some instances constitutes kufr. There's theological consensus among Sunnis that Mu'awiyyah is a righteous companion and that all of the companions are promised paradise. You can check Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah or any of the Sunni works that deal with the sahabah. Actually Salafi aqidah texts rarely discuss this issue about the theological position of the sahabah, I'm not sure if any of ibn Abd al-Wah'hab's core tracts discuss it in any meaningful detail.

He was one of the Kuttāb al-Waĥī and is considered to have been a righteous khalīfah, even if his rule began the era of dynasties and ended the Rashidūn era. Yes he isn't like Ahl al-Bayt or al-Badrīyūn or al-'Asharah al-Mubash'sharah - but he is acknowledged as a respected, important, sahabi. If we were to put them in tiers: 1. 10 mubasharin, 2. Ahl al-Bayt, 3. Ahl al-Badr, etc. He'd probably fall in the 5th or 6th category.

Abdullah bin Mubarak was asked,

"Who is superior, Mu'awiyya or Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz?"

He replied,

"The dust that entered the nostril of Muawiyah’s horse during the era of Allah's Messenger is better than Umar bin Abd al-Aziz."

It's so strange that he is making an argument about Muawiyyah stripping the Islamic component entirely like this. He is making him out like some secular ruler without any sectarian preferences.

I got the impression from MBS interview on hadith that he was going a modernist Salafi psuedo-Mutazili approach so it makes sense to me that they could venerate a figure like Hallaj.

Revisionist history for political agendas

Imagine thinking al-Hallaj was oppressed by the history books 🤣

This should make it extremely hard to use those same sources to derive some kind of rosy picture which is where I'm confused. How are these guys trying to rehabilitate his image after over 1000 years? Seems like a lost cause when all the source material sees him as a villain

You tend to find works that are specialized around particular sects and their development, like Ash'arism, Maturidism, Hanbalism, Salafism, etc. The Formative Period of Islamic Thought is an interesting one on the development/construction of early Sunnism. There's Ash'arism Encounters Avicennism which is a case study on Sayf al-Din al-Amidi but goes over the development of both schools. Yasir Qadhi is working on an intellectual history of Hanbalism-cum-Salafism.

Did Shafi'i actually impugne Abu Hanifa or was he just skeptical of his fiqh/creed? I know he wrote a rebuttal to his teacher Mohammed al-Shaybani but I haven't looked into his views specifically.

The early Hanbalites made their opposition to Abu Hanifa a borderline creedal point. Some of the stuff is really vitriolic, I'm thinking of some content in Harb al-Kirmani's treatises.

Important to note that the Murji'i "school" is something that changed over time and that this term is being used as an epithet here. It's more useful to ask if Abu Hanifa had a particular belief according to the material he left behind rather than, "is this accusation true?"

Yes I was aware Shafi'i criticized Hanafī uṣūl as represented to him by al-Shaybānī who was Abu Hanīfa's direct student and perhaps the second or third most important representative of the entire madh'hab. But it seems to me there's a difference between arguing that a lesser aspect of their epistemology is heresy (bidd'ah) versus accusing Abū Hanīfa of kufr or being a Murji'ī. The early Hanbalī stance on him seems significantly more scathing.

If you could provide some specific quotes from al-Shafi'i that would help me. Thanks

I thought we weren't allowed to quote Islamic scripture and offer our own interpretations on this sub.

Abu Huraira reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “No child is born but that he is upon natural instinct. His parents make him a Jew, or a Christian, or Magian. As an animal delivers a child with limbs intact, do you detect any flaws?” Then, Abu Huraira recited the verse, “The nature of Allah upon which he has set people,” (30:30).

Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 1358, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2658

Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim

فَإِنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَا مِنْ مَوْلُودٍ إِلَّا يُولَدُ عَلَى الْفِطْرَةِ فَأَبَوَاهُ يُهَوِّدَانِهِ أَوْ يُنَصِّرَانِهِ أَوْ يُمَجِّسَانِهِ كَمَا تُنْتَجُ الْبَهِيمَةُ بَهِيمَةً جَمْعَاءَ هَلْ تُحِسُّونَ فِيهَا مِنْ جَدْعَاءَ ثُمَّ يَقُولُ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا

This hadith and concept of Fitrah is attested to in the Quran as well. It conveys the idea that all humans are born innocently and free of corruption. It is the exact opposite doctrine of original sin, which also contradicts the Quranic لا تزر وازرة وزرة اخرى .

The hadith says that children are poked by Satan at the time of birth, not that they are born impure. A hadith leaving out a name and another including it is not necessarily a disagreement, one just has more material than the other.

I just find this entire idea quite strange, it requires reading a lot into this narration to find a link, and it makes more sense that these two things are just slightly correlated than causal in any fashion.

The idea that, "one soul does not bear the burden of another" refers in the Quran to sins, i.e. that sins cannot be inherited.

According to al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah, one of the only theological texts accepted by all Sunni schools, all of the sahabah are promised Paradise.

That is a slight oversight on my part. Tahawi says, Paradise, we testify that they are in Paradise due to what was testified for them by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and his statements are true. They are Abu…

It sounds like he is referring to several incidents merged together? The first things that came to mind to me were the story of Labīd b. Rabī'ah discontinuing his composition of poetry after the Revelation of the Qur'ān and the reported incident of a group of Quraysh prostrating upon hearing Surah al-Najm. However without more details we can't be certain what's being referred to here.

What does eloquence have to do with the problem of interpretation? Even assuming a text of absolute eloquence, isn't the nature of literature and communication necessarily prone to interpretation? Most words in a language that aren't particles have multiple definitions or purports.

Again I don't think this is an eloquence issue. As a text becomes longer and more complex, obviously this will begin to open up avenues of purport. Furthermore this is assuming the author had a specific intent or wanted the text to be understood in one singular way. Ambiguity is often a part of authorship. Also no matter how clear a text is, that doesn't stop people from superimposing their own issues onto it.

What do you make of the fact that Umar also didn't codify the Quran and the burning of libraries under his caliphate? Is it possible that he was skeptical of intellectualizing the tradition as a whole, believed the world would end soon, and saw people's living memories of the Prophet as sufficient?

So is poetry ineloquent because it's vague? Many incredibly eloquent poems leave much to the imagination intentionally. An idea can be presented exactly as an author intended and still be open to interpretation. Authors sometimes intentionally do not answer questions. Many forms of art and literature play with these ideas.

What topics do you think Quran is vague about where it intended to be clear?

Most of the Quranic legal matters seem pretty explicit for me. Islamic law is more intensely debated due to hadith specifications as opposed to the Quranic Ayat themselves. As for theology there's no doubt it's very contentious but I often question whether the theological issues most Muslims debate directly come from the Quran or rather are issues from other traditions, philosophy, politics, or other spheres of life that Muslims then turn to the Quran to answer - but regarding which the Quran does not explicitly discuss. In which case the Quran is not vague on these issues, rather the author did not set out to explicitly deal with them in the first place.

What do you make of Quranic manuscripts that contained versions of du'a as Surah that later became ahadith? Like Dua Qunut as a separate Surah for example. Do you see that as an early example of writing hadith?

[https://www.academia.edu/40869286/Two\_Lost\_S%C5%ABras\_of\_the\_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n\_S%C5%ABrat\_al\_Khal%CA%BF\_and\_S%C5%ABrat\_al\_%E1%B8%A4afd\_between\_Textual\_and\_Ritual\_Canon\_1st\_3rd\_7th\_9th\_Centuries\_Pre\_Print\_Version](https://www.academia.edu/40869286/Two_Lost_S%C5%ABras_of_the_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n_S%C5%ABrat_al_Khal%CA%BF_and_S%C5%ABrat_al_%E1%B8%A4afd_between_Textual_and_Ritual_Canon_1st_3rd_7th_9th_Centuries_Pre_Print_Version)

Since Hafd and Khal' are not considered to be Qur'an, but rather are considered to be du'a, and are represented in the later hadith literature - I am asking how do you reconcile this writing of something that is essentially a hadith alongside early Qur'anic manuscripts? The traditional narrative is that the Prophet prohibited writing hadith early on so that hadith wouldn't be confused for Qur'an, and that "Suwar" Hafd and Khal' are a mistake as Suwar but actually hadith. How do you reconcile instances like this or Sahifat Hammam b. Munabbih with the idea that the idea of hadith is a back-projection and were not written down until much later?

This is plainly historically inaccurate. There was always a diverse range of opinions among Muslims and Sunnis regarding philosophy. Philosophy was integrated into Islamic theological discourse with Abu al-Hassan al-Ash'ari, his refutation of the Mu'tazilah, and since then it has always been part and parcel of it.

Even the staunchest Hanbalite scholars dealt with philosophical issues, notably Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, who was widely read in philosophy, Christian theology, Jewish theology, and Islamic kalam.

You can refer to the Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology by Schmidtke or the Oxford Handbook of Islamic Philosophy coauthered with el-Rouayheb. Yasir Qadhi also traces this intellectual history with his PhD thesis. The works on ibn Taymiyyah's engagement with philosophy are legion.

There is so much misinformation and inaccuracy in this comment it's hard to know where to begin. Firstly Wikipedia is not an academic or primary source so I don't know how this comment is even allowed.

Qiyās is not something derived from Greek philosophy nor does it have to do with either philosophy or theology. It's a juristic epistemic principle that simply refers to analogy. Ibn Taymiyyah was hugely influenced by the Maliki school to the extent that he wrote a booklet called Fadl Amal Ahl al-Madina in which he argues that the epistemic principles of the Malikis are the most superior in all of Islamic law.

Ghazali was widely criticized by scholars of the Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali traditions for integrating the philosophy of ibn Sinā into Ash'arī theology. He was also criticized by the Dhahiris to the extent his books were burned in public in al-Andalus. What this has to do with the topic at hand is beyond me, because their primary problem was with al-Ihyā which isn't even one of his philosophical works, but rather his magnum opus on Islamic spirituality.

Mods have to do a better job letting downright misinformation proliferate on this sub

The kinds of scholars that reject all forms of philosophy are motivated by puritanical sentiments firstly and secondly don't understand what philosophy is. Some kinds of philosophical discourse are baked into the Quran and Islamic creed as…

I should also clarify that those scholars, the intelligent ones at least, accept some kinds of philosophy and formal logic, they just don't call them philosophy. They have very elaborate discussions on linguistics, philosophy of language, philosophy of political science, even metaphysics and epistemology, etc.

There are some truly closed minded scholars that are anti-intellectual but those are few. There are many anti-intellectual students but they aren't at the level of traditional scholarship per se.

How can we seriously argue that the resurrection was a historical event that changed the course of Christology from an academic perspective?

Is this a troll post?

How do you reconcile this with Joshua Little's 6th point doubting the historicity of hadith, which is due to hadith mentioning supernatural occurrences? Surely if hadith can be dubious due to the presence of miraculous descriptions, and this layer of hadith-reporter belief in the miraculous occurrence is not considered there, then the anonymously distributed Gospels which discuss miraculous occurrences should not be exempt from the same skepticism.

Little criticizes the historicity of narrations due to the mention of miracles. As I mentioned in my comment, this extra layer of the belief of the reporting individuals is not a consideration for hadith matn criticism in the Islamic academy. If that criticism is valid, the subjective belief of proto-Christians or Christian Jews that they saw the resurrection is irrelevant to the historicity of the narration.

Either we prima facie accept that people believe they saw something and therefore do not question the historicity of a historical account on the basis of something miraculous or we do scrutinize miracle narrations.

It seems you are focusing on whether a community came to conclude a miracle happened in the past through belief then historically back-projecting it, which seems to be shifting the goalpost unnecessarily.

Do you hold that descriptions of miracles cast doubt on a historical account? Whether the person claims to be an eyewitness or not, is the mere description of the supernatural enough to doubt historicity?

By Little's standards, the NT depiction of the resurrection would be more dubious than hadith depictions of miraculous events.

Check Ali al-Sallabee's book for Umar b. Abd al-Aziz.

What does this have to do with the academic study of the Qur’an or Islam?

How is this a resource for researching academic Quranic studies? It seems like a list of verses organized to prove... ?

I think there's a misunderstanding of the word Hamd here in Arabic. Hamd refers to gratitude for something's identity. There is praise (thanā), adoration (tawqīr), veneration (tasbīĥ, seems to be analogous or similar to the Hebrew s-b-h as it's the same trilateral root), love (ĥubb), and then ĥamd.

Hamd, from ĥ-m-d means - to be grateful or thankful for something due to it's attributes, not due to actions it has done. It's mistranslated as praise (thanā) because there's no direct English equivalent. "I am grateful that the moon exists so that we may look upon its beauty, even though the moon does nothing for us."

The idea being communicated by Quranic use of hamd is that God deserves praise and gratitude even if He gave us nothing, and then it goes on to discuss what He does actually give.

Ahmad from hamd means, "the most appreciated."

You can check Hans-Wehr dictionary for details.

I think it's interesting to note that consensus on the crucifixtion and resurrection of Jesus happened over time. The doctrine clearly existed early on, but so did some competing ones. Someone who's more learned in Biblical history and…

I provided an academic citation from Bart Ehrman and quoted everything else I referenced. I also clearly indicated the areas I honestly didn't know about. I don't understand why my comment was deleted but your response here has no academic references for the presupposition you are claiming.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I Corinthians 15

Paul seems to be retorting to someone preaching that there is no resurrection of the dead and that Christ was not resurrected. I don't know if there are any manuscripts from the people Paul is rebutting here, but it seems disingenuous to indicate that all 1st-century documents presuppose that if it is something being actively established as doctrine here in Corinthians.

I'm curious on your take regarding chain-of-custody evidentiary proceedings in Western courts? A lot of times, the only proof that evidence against a defendant in a case is legitimate is essentially a chain of law officers signing that they did indeed receive and hand off to the next person. Albiet all of these people are alive.

I guess my question is, do you have an ontological problem with the idea of chain-based successive information transfer or is it just in the particular case of hadith - and if so specifically why? Is it due to the lack of historical documentation at a certain point in the chain? Or the reliance on memory? Or the fact that hadith began to be written down later?

Of course. That being said, what about scenarios where officers are all alive but never questioned? I think he gave an interesting response I'd like to explore more. Obviously, even modern chain-of-custody has cases of fabrications and falsification.

There are a lot of ways this kind of evidentiary methodology fails in modern courts, sometimes leading to lengthy sentences based on outright lies only to be discovered later. But the overall efficacy of the method is widely accepted and is probably the closest modern equivalent to isnād that we can contrast it with, so I think the parallels are worth pondering.

I appreciate that this is sub is so well moderated but sometimes I think it's just a tad overboard. This is a relevant discussion to the topic at hand.

Imagine thinking one of the most cerebral intellectuals of our tradition and who produced some of the most sophisticated works in human history was "anti-intellectual." You just haven't read him, Islamic studies, or philosophy more broadly. Do you think Decartes or other skeptics caused mass intellectual waves where people decided to stop thinking at the mere mention of "John Galt"?

Please stop buying into outdated Orientalist hogwash and try harder

You don't know how to write effective software specs. Garbage in garbage out. If you could write a decent spec for an appropriately sized feature, you could increase your productivity x5-x10. People who know how to write behavior driven design or TDD specifications for appropriately sized changes can build much faster with LLMs.

Problem Definition:
Currently, one Python Lambda script consumes data However, none of this is implemented in the front-end - all of these parameters have to be passed as JSON for the Lambda to execute.

Motivations:
User should be able to automatically get a response containing the relevant data, speaking to the proper API.

Proposed Solution:
Integrate this Lambda script into the front-end. When a user selects it, the data is pulled. All of the data is sent with the call. This is represented graphically.

Definition of Done:
Function is represented graphically and, when clicked, the script is run and user gets response.

Feature: Integrate lambda into Front-End
As a user
I want to automatically function containing relevant data
So that I can efficiently function with data and with the proper API

Background:
Given the system supports consuming data

Scenario: Select function
Given the user selects data
When the function is selected
Then the data is automatically pulled
And all of the relevant data is sent with the call
And passed as JSON to the Lambda

Scenario:
Given:
When:
Then:
And:

Tell it what language you want the code in. Give a high level overview of software/module architecture and what this feature is for. Give it examples of the most similar code or repeated patterns.

Then you're giving it tasks that are too large. Break it down into a small enough feature and then just edit the code. Always give it your completed code so it can remember mistakes.

The New Testament is a series of books by various authors about Jesus and his teachings. None of those books are claimed to be by Jesus or the Word of God directly. They are all accusedly "inspired" texts, human creations of the apostles that God supposedly encourages them to write and guided them regarding. They are historical documents, not direct Revelation like parts of the Old Testament (which also contains historical accounts by various authors alongside the direct word of God and other writings).

The Injīl was something given to Jesus directly, like the Zabūr (Psalms) or the Tawrah (parts of the Torah that are Allah speaking directly) or the Alwāĥ (Tablets). There's disagreement as to whether the Injīl was a recited Revelation (like the Tawrah and Qur'ān) or more akin to the Sunnah, which confirms the Qur'ān. It seems possible that the Injīl was like the Sunnah and the New Testament is a very weak/fabricated collection of Isa's teachings.

However there's no way that the current New Testament represents the Injil. Biblical scholars mention a "Document Q" that no longer exists which the early gospel writers were drawing from. That Document Q itself probably contained some of the Injil but was not itself the Injil.

It does not seem the Injil was collected or codified at any stage, whether it was a Revelation or more akin to the Sunnah of prophet Muhammad.

Allah knows best.

Imagine criticizing such a big khidma someone is doing for the Ummah because of some errors. Just submit the errors and try to contribute. People always detracting and never doing anything positive. There are shuyukh out there teaching the entire Sunnan sittah cover to cover off of this website online.

A mistranslation is the fault of the person that doesn't know Arabic so long as it isn't some intentional distortion. Many ulama would narrate ahadith without grading them at all because they gave the sanad and saw it was the responsibility…

You're the type that will takfir your own kaba'ir when you learn about their mufrad opinions because of total lack of tolerance. Just wait until you learn what the Hanābila said about imām Bukhārī's Aqidah, or what imam al-Nasa'i was killed for, or even more controversial - ibn Taymiyyah's views on fanā al-Nār. No tolerance for what you immaturely deem as "mistakes".

I'd like for you to DM me your credentials in ulum al-hadith and I will DM you mine then we can determine what paygrade everyone is in for this discussion.

This hadith was declared weak by Uthaymin in his commentary on Kitab al Tawhid.

Wearing depictions of living things with eyes is excluded in the hadith on hanging up images, الا رقما بثوب

There is no existing original copy of sahifat Hammam bin Munabbih, unfortunately. That represents the earliest possible hadith work, but we don't have it, and it dates to the era of the tabi'un. Western scholars accuse hadith of being inaccurate at the tabi'i level and nonexistent at the sahabi level, so the mindboggling accuracy of the atba tabi' level doesn't faze them.

We need more research done on our side as traditional Muslims.

Is the plan to sell these once you iron out the hiccups?

Would die to have two of these

Possibly a crypto-Muslim due to living in a place without other Muslims and danger of proclaiming it/lack of knowledge of the obligation

Formative Period of Islamic Thought by Montgomery Watts but it's pretty dense and has some gaping oversights. Kalamopod on Youtube or Yasir Qadhi's Library chats are lighter. Most of the impartial reviews of all of the theological sects are dense academic works unless you get into polemics. Most mid- to high-level Aqidah works discuss many sects but from a refutation perspective, not historical development.

This entire issue assumes that time itself is coeternal and coexisting with Allah, not that Allah transcends time in a nonlinear way. The question assumes that Allah is, wa iyadhubillah, trapped by the forward linear progression of events and therefore is either acting or not acting within this continuum.

This is why the majority of these philosophical and theological issues are categorically a bidd'ah. The question itself is wrong and making incorrect assumptions about Allah that are shirk-laden if taken to the logical conclusion (which probably most people didn't realize when debating it).

It's a philosophical question that you cannot find posed in the Quran and Sunnah even if you find it in Aqidah books. I don't think you understood my problem with the question. Setting up those options implies that those are the conceivable possible options for Allah vis-a-vis time, meaning that Allah must have one of three relationships to His creative power and time - which is actually not logically necessary and limiting because the question is clearly from the perspective of someone that did not consider a Being transcendent beyond the limitations of time itself.

Is there a way I can contact them and just ask for one? I want the socks 😩

What happens is a very competent senior developer starts running a business overseas where he hires junior developers. He does the interviews for a lot of jobs, secures them all, then manages an entire development team running many fulltime positions. That way his job becomes as a project or program manager over 10+ Western incomes. He might make 500-600k yearly doing that, which over there is worth 10x as much relatively speaking.

Literally ruined the bike for me because I can't unsee this goofy goober 😭

This is a total distortion of the Maliki school. Niqab is Sunnah in the Maliki school except where kuffar can see the woman's face, in which case it is fard. That's according to shaykh Rami Nsour, the most knowledgeable Maliki in the West according to Shadee elMasri himself. Check his lectures on Maharim al-Lisan towards the end discussing awrah.

This literally goes against the books of the Maliki madh'hab that obligate niqab if a kaffir man might be able to see the woman's face. The karaha of niqab is where it would make the woman stand out or be more noticable to attract male attention, such as in some Ottoman provinces where only prostitutes wore niqab and it was a signal of zinā. This is a distortion even if it came from Shadee elMasry.

It means "the Greatest Name." It's a concept mentioned in hadith and focused a lot on by the Sufis, what is God's Greatest Name?

https://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/463/my-problem-is-that-i-am-not-a-virgin-and-i-am-afraid-to-tell-my-future-husband-that-who-ever-it-maybe/

She can just ask the other person what his dealbreakers are. If he mentions that he wants someone that has never been in a relationship or is a virgin, she can continue that conversation, then tell him later she doesn't think they are compatible. If the person doesn't indicate it's a dealbreaker, then there's no reason to bring it up per se, unless you feel like they are expecting that and it would be deception.

There are also brothers with pasts who have repented, reverts that may be more understanding, divorced men, and many virgin men that won't care.

https://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/463/my-problem-is-that-i-am-not-a-virgin-and-i-am-afraid-to-tell-my-future-husband-that-who-ever-it-maybe/

The Quran clearly commands that zānīs are only to marry other zānīs. It would be harām for a virgin man to marry a zānīyyah should he know about it, and he has a right to marry a virgin if he is chaste.

https://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/463/my-problem-is-that-i-am-not-a-virgin-and-i-am-afraid-to-tell-my-future-husband-that-who-ever-it-maybe/

So if a Muslim man was a drug dealer and has a conviction that prevents him from certain things in his country, should he hide that sin that he has repented from and not tell his future wife? Is she entitled to know about this past sin or not?

I'm aware of this opinion from many ulama especially modern ones, however there is also the exact opposite opinion. I choose the opinion that does the least damage to the party that stands to be hurt the most, which is a Muslim man who did not engage in zina. His ability to trust, faith in Din, financial, social, and psychological well-being are all at jeopardy in this circumstance.

If a Muslim man marries a sister, finds out about this later, and feels so deceived he wants a divorce - he is subject to the no-fault divorce laws of his country of residence. It is no exaggeration that this could ruin his life and take decades to recover from.

A Muslim sister stands to lose little as the marriage market is so lopsided and extreme almost any sister can get married virtually instantly to a suitable candidate. Zina doesn't not preclude Muslim women from good husbands. However, hiding her past could affect their marriage and if it is ever discovered, which it almost always is, then it could lead to travesty.

It just makes no sense to impose this on Muslim men on top of everything else. Muslim women have options, even if they've done zina. This is taking someone and putting them in a situation they would never choose.

You will have whatever you want when you get there and more that you can never imagine.

This is beyond out of touch. Honestly it's shocking someone could say something like this. What planet are you on?

They are zanadiqah destroying Islam from within by making it borderline impossible to follow

This is literally haram. Individual Muslims cannot act out official state actions. If you do this you are engaging in a sin. Only an Islamic government can act out hudud.

Your sentiment is right but this solution is haram.

Imām Abu Hāmid al-Ghazālī,

"We say: This leniency is not a matter of choice; but necessities render prohibitions permissible. For instance, we know that eating dead animals is prohibited, but to die [of hunger] is much worse. I wish I knew how someone who does not accept this [principle] could judge that the Imamate in our time is invalid insofar as its conditions are not fulfilled, while he is unable to replace the imam with someone who seeks it, for even he cannot find someone who fulfills its conditions. *Which of his states is better, to say that the judges are dismissed, appointments are invalid, marriages are annulled, all the decrees of the governors everywhere in the world are unenforceable,* and all of mankind are engaged in what is unlawful; or to say that, based on the current state and necessity, the Imamate is valid and the decrees and appointments enforceable?"

[Al-Iqtisad fī al-I'tiqad]

Ghazālī states that all official state actions are unenforceable without a proper caliph/imām.

I'm not against it but I think most people who are boycotting are morally licensing. They aren't actually doing anything productive which accomplishes something meaningful, it just makes them feel better about doing nothing. Feeling bad about being useless is the first step.

EDIT: I really hate when a post asks someone to explain their position then people downvote you for answering the post because they disagree.

Okay please point me to one military or strategic objective which the people of Gaza have benefitted from as a result of boycotting. Please show me where the Israeli government or military has decided to be less extreme or kill less people because of boycotting. Just once instance please. Thanks

I have had my fair share of serious trials in life, from painful chronic illness to outright persecution and even borderline torture, but the worst thing was due to trying to get married. The amount of suffering Muslim sisters put me through was truly insane and nearly broke my mind.

Starving Muslim without access to food:

I apologize for my posts here within the last week.

I know there might be some impressionable users who might look at what I’ve written and think well, they should just give up trying to avoid stealing and eating haram food. Not what I’m advocating.

But it sucks. I kinda wish I just ate whatever and lived my 20s up instead of this decade-long depression and starvation. I see no benefit, other than sinning differently…but that’s me.

In any case, I’m not encouraging people to sin.

Your Response:

Are you okay? I feel as though you’re experiencing extreme waswasa.

Also why do you NEED to eat food so much to be happy? You should already be content with your life without food, they should just be an addition to make it better.

You seem to be struggling a lot from abstaining so why dont you just eat cake?

Clearly you don't understand the concept of analogy and comparison. You also don't understand physiobiological needs or the hierarchy of needs. You need help.

It's not just unmarried Muslim men. It's unmarried Muslim men who are getting mistreated by potential sisters (monkeybranching, cheating, spending significant sums for her to change her mind last minute), married men who cannot get their rights from their wives, men who are divorced whose wives took everything (wealth, children, reputation), etc. The incel contingent is actually only a small portion.

I can count on one hand in the masjid the men that haven't/aren't being oppressed by a romantic Muslimah interest. It's out of hand, there's no accountability, and it is dhulm.

Sisters are destroying the future of the Muslim jama'ah in the West under the pretenses of merging Western liberal rights with Islamic ones and buying into colonialist narratives that are anti-Muslim men. They're doing the job that imperialism never could.

I think the reason for the tone is because men are spoken to with this aggressive tone constantly, even when they are the victims of abuse. So the response is to speak generally, en masse, with the same kind of aggression. You also have to keep in mind that good sisters who mind their business are not really spotlighted. The same sister might hurt 3-4 brothers while that one good sister doesn't even interact with any brothers and might marry the 2nd or 3rd brother she meets. So the negative impact and the amount of attention drawn to the negative ones outweighs the good ones.

I'm sure there are good sisters, but the ratio is getting really skewed and the messaging needs to change rapidly before there's a serious Muslim population crisis. From our vantage point in the US it seems like it's too late to turn the tide and the next 3 decades are going to see our masajid empty.

Do you think there's a Muslim of all Muslim men that I attend and have some say regarding? This is an organic response that is uncoordinated. There's no strategy. It's a widespread grassroots reaction to a lot of individual Muslim men being harmed. The coordinated strategists are the compassionate imams that have money, donors, and governments behind them - and they are pushing back on this populist response.

If I had some kind of say perhaps it would be worthwhile to mention that not all sisters or women writ large are evil or malicious. Although to be frank in my own personal life I heavily regret dealing with nearly every sister I dealt with, and they were almost all niqabi, ostensibly "righteous." So I wouldn't even want to put myself in that position of trying to create that nuance because I don't trust myself to be unbiased.

Sisters need to push back against this mainstream mistreatment of Muslim men - at a governmental level by persecution, at a societal level by dehumanizing them, on a racial level, and on an interpersonal abuse level. Sisters that do this should be shamed by other Muslimahs and ostracized. The sisters that are married can use that influence to advise their husbands to bring more nuance into the conversation.

The angry riled up Muslim men are unlikely to introduce this nuance to the conversation, I'm sorry. I don't think it's right. I think thems the facts.

What you are seeing and disagreeing with is less of an "approach" was my point. It's a lot of people being reactionary and hurt at once, with a few prominent outlets giving face to that. I don't tackle this issue in such a prominent way that I need a strategy nor am I going around haranguing Muslim women. What I was trying to communicate is that this aggressive response you see and probably justifiably disagree with is not a calculated thing you'll find a lot of success talking people out of, it's an emotional response from a lot of hurt men.

Thank you for being receptive and listening

https://youtu.be/h36yVwBKi9Y?si=xdr5kVr4CXKVBFus

What I went through wasn't this bad but this gives you a taste of the sociopathic lack of accountability, immaturity, and devaluing of the lives of Muslim men that has become rampant in our communities. This is an extreme case but it highlights a lot of the problems.

Sisters will lead brothers on for years under the pretenses of protracted engagements, extract resources, then change their minds at the last minute with impunity. They will monkeybranch or outright juggle multiple brothers making promises to all of them at once. They'll have kaffir boyfriends while vetting men for marriage. I've known brothers whose wives tried to divorce only two weeks in to try to take half of their wealth (after brother being chaste for almost two decades and finally marrying). Mental health issues, spiritual illnesses, etc.

Sisters think it's halal to destroy Muslim men without consequence 🤷‍♂️

A lot of sisters like to use one brother for his emotional labor to get ready for marriage then marry someone else who didn't invest in them once they're ready so that there's no emotional baggage and they have much more negotiating power in the relationship. So they get a "starter" fiance to deal with their mental, emotional, and spiritual issues but they don't want to "owe" him anything so they marry the next guy.

This is emotional and spiritual abuse. This is partially why the wali is so important. Not to protect the girl, but to protect MEN from the sisters.

A man's heart should be given to those that will love him only on condition of his iman and his loving them. Nowadays, that only describes children. Without the societal structure to teach women proper values deep love of a wife is extremely risky, however it can be experienced in parenthood.

Most women marry into a lifestyle, not for a particular man. There are some rare exceptions, but the reality is that most men are loved for what they provide - not who they are. Parents, children, siblings, true brothers in the community, students, teachers love you for who you are. Expecting this out of a wife, especially in this day and age, is setting yourself up for emotional failure.

Many niqabi sisters who study Din behave like this. Without a societal structure that teaches true Islamic ethics and selfless love, it becomes about human biology pretty fast.

Hence why a lot of sisters are refusing to get married and the elite wealthy Muslim men don't want sisters with such attitudes. They don't want to feel used for their wealth. So having this kind of approach actually disqualifies them from thr men they'd most like to marry

I never met a brother that said he didn't want to provide for his wife financially. If you're interacting with men like that, you're definitely looking in the wrong place. It's usually sisters that have the ridiculous demands. I myself have always offered to take care of fiancé's needs entirely, it was always them who were unresolved debilitating trauma, avoidant/dismissive attachment, BPD, manic depressive, etc.

The problem is that too many of the sisters want Imaginary Imran. 27 years old, 6 foot tall, virgin with no experience but behaves like a player, master's degree or better, minimum 300k yearly income, not a momma's boy but with a good family, same ethnicity as them just light skinned, long flowing hair, bodybuilder, masculine but doesn't set any rules on her, his money is her money but not vice versa, green eyes, religious but not religious enough to force her to do anything, adores only her, against polygyny on principle, knowledge of an Islamic scholar but not preachy, bad boy but no criminal record, etc.

When they find a guy that's close enough to this impossible standard, he goes and marries several women from back home.

🤷‍♂️

Please explain why practically everyone involved in matchmaking or running matrimonial programs says that the reason for the Muslim marriage crisis is female pickiness and not men requiring women to work. Also explain the wider societal statistics that indicate women only swipe right about 5% of the time on dating apps.

You're being very aggressive. I wonder if this bitterness comes off in your marriage search discussions? 🤔

The lifetime commitment apps probably have a swipe ratio of 1% or less because the pickiness is increased exponentially.

But thanks for conceding my point that the marriage crisis is due to female pickiness, not men.

Btw research on involuntarily celibate men indicates that they are least picky of all other sampled groups. So it's highly likely that many of the brothers being routinely rejected have the lowest observable standards yet are still being blamed.

Umm... many Muslim men? In fact many Muslim men prefer women whose BMI is "obese". (I myself prefer women who have a heavier body type)

However this is a horrible example because weight is something in a woman's direct control. She can choose to stop eating and exercise. Height, handsomeness, and income are not in a man's direct control.

That's been my personal experience dealing with a significant amount of people over the better part of a decade. It also aligns with general research on wider society in my country.

For what specific claims?

I was responding to the content of the post more than calling them gold diggers.

As for the general increase in superficiality and pickiness based on income, there's a plethora of social science research on that that I can link.

Do you think I just store links of research to retrieve at a moment's interest lol? Calm down. What's wrong with you? You didn't give me 30 seconds to respond.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/

1/3 of women studied resented their partner for his income

Shortage of "economically attractive" men

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12603

There's research indicating that for every 1 single woman there are 1.5 single men in the US, indicating that US dating/marriage has essentially become polygynyous. There's research on women selecting 5% of men only on dating apps (we have reason to assume marital apps would be even more selective), while men select 40-60%. Research on the increasing selectiveness and choosiness of women. Research on promiscuity statistics of Muslim women in Western countries being significantly higher than those of Muslim men. Etc.

The fact that you aren't familiarized with the social science research in this department doesn't make it 1) untrue or 2) make me responsible for educating you - especially with how aggressive you're acting.

You should have done the work to help yourself on your own beforehand and still disclose it in full. If you have not worked on it by yourself please ya Allah do not involve someone else in it

Sounds like she has BPD and extrmely anxious attachment. Tell her to get some counseling and therapy before considering marriage.

Hey I grew up with a very painful Chronic condition for 12 years and it got better for me. DM if you need support

You realize that most human beings lived with extended families for generations right? Islam says nothing on the cultural choices as to who exactly you reside in in one single domicile.

There is no distinction as pertains to murder between passion or premeditation. She should report what she saw to the authorities. The process for catching a spouse cheating at home is documented in the Quran. If she engages in vigilantism, she will be punished according to the level of damage she does (i.e. either reciprocity or execution if she murders).

Real Muslim men are literally being victimized, labeled, persecuted, imprisoned, and genocided across the globe. Look at Gaza. What are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis

Taleb's entire idea is that we are overconfident in what we think we know and this leads to interventions or behaviors that are unjustifiable when taking into account what we do not or cannot know. He is not against modern medicine as a whole, he advocates for skeptical empiricism.

Sometimes he does take it to a bit of an extreme like his idea about stochastic exercise in Black Swan or his laughably bad takes on polytheism and complex thinking. He's not some infallible messiah and as broadly as he thinks, he has errors.

That being said where the real danger of iatrogenics lies is not in individual treatment in the modern age IMO. It's the long term cross-generational impact of modern science, technology, and medicine on the human body. Microplastics, phathalates, and other constituent components of drugs, the environment, and plastics could wipe the entire species out - even if they save lives or improve them drastically in the short term.

[http://www.invitfile.ru/books/Silent\_Risk.pdf](http://www.invitfile.ru/books/Silent_Risk.pdf)

Has anyone attended these? What on earth is this pricing?

Following

That's what I had to do to arrive at my destination

I didn't check. I got off and took backroads until I got closer.

How about we don't use the colors or format of European colonization vexilology?

It's got to be something fixable. I don't think Reddits UI/UX team can get away with breaking a multimillion dollar app.

Are you guys sure this isn't related in any way to the Crowdstrike driver?

As hard as it can be to imagine, one day your life will be more beautiful than you could've ever hoped.

Murāqabah is mentioned by the likes of 'Umar bin al-Khattab when he advised us to take account of our deeds before they are accounted for us. It was something discussed by many of the great Sunnī ulama, and ibn al-Qayyim wrote about it at length in Madārij al-Sālikīn.

Someone please sell me one of these tank bags 💀

Would love to buy one. Can you do different etching besides Husqvarna?

This made me laugh

Excited to see what you put up and hope everything else goes smoothly until you get back!

Loving the aesthetics and flourishes. Guiter and blue accordian are gorgeous

The swamp is on fire

Printed giraffes is to die for

Look so much better in these pics than in the samples. Love it

Me either. Why is it taking so long?

The water gives it away

Any idea of how much?

I decided to ship it out because I'm far too busy and don't have experience changing laptop screens. Let's hope it's only $200 or so and not 4 figures like some people's repair estimates from ASUS RMA 😭

So long as it's not over $500 and my device is returned within 2 weeks with no other damage, I'll be happy

I extensively documented the state of my laptop beforehand so here's hoping

Setting up external monitors and dropped one, it happened to land in a way where it cracked it

Not exactly easy to find the right OEM screen, someone to install, and shipping for less than that.


Current status