Reddit comments from September 2024

Probably the most horrific piece of media I've ever seen in my life.

Probably the most horrific piece of media I've ever seen in my life.

Do you think climate change is affecting Makkan ecology?

How is this affecting growth of foliage and flora cycles?

It's certainly possible that there's more growth and more active foliage lifecycles due to increased temperature (which sometimes increases rainfall). I don't know. Due to that, I wouldn't want to write off what Sinai is saying totally by looking at what's happening today and assuming the more temperate (but possibly drier and more barren) climate of the 7th century was the same. It's possible climate change is making Makkah greener.

How would you respond to the idea that by imam Muslim's time, traditionalists were spreading narrations such as,

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The Hour will not be established until wealth is so abundant and overflowing that a man will go out with his wealth to give alms but not find anyone who accepts it from him, and until rivers and meadows return to the land of Arabia.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 157

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Muslim

عَنْ ‌أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يَكْثُرَ الْمَالُ وَيَفِيضَ حَتَّى يَخْرُجَ الرَّجُلُ بِزَكَاةِ مَالِهِ فَلَا يَجِدُ أَحَدًا يَقْبَلُهَا مِنْهُ وَحَتَّى تَعُودَ أَرْضُ الْعَرَبِ مُرُوجًا وَأَنْهَارًا

157 صحيح مسلم كتاب الزكاة باب الترغيب في الصدقة قبل أن لا يوجد من يقبلها

Clearly there was some greenery because they had grazing animals and cattle. There was also rain and some bodies of water. That doesn't mean it accords with the Quranic description of the natural world, which clearly mentions features of nature simply not present in the peninsula (like mountains of various colors).

It's also interesting to note the Saudis are attempting to engineer the environment so that it is greener.

I'm not sure what faith position you are trying to take by determining what secular academic research currently indicates is most accurate according to a particular academic's research. Seems oxymoronic. You have to adopt a paradigm first and then find accuracy within that. The supposed thesis of academic religious studies is that it doesn't make truth claims about metaphysics, divinity, truth, or Revelation. How are you supposed to determine accuracy of beliefs within such a framework?

That's not the Qur'anic passage quoted by apologists to refer to Ahmad...

You realize there's a passage that literally uses the word Ahmad right?

As-Saf 61:6

وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَٰبَنِىٓ إِسْرَٰٓءِيلَ إِنِّى رَسُولُ ٱللَّهِ إِلَيْكُم مُّصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَىَّ مِنَ ٱلتَّوْرَىٰةِ وَمُبَشِّرًۢا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِى مِنۢ بَعْدِى ٱسْمُهُۥٓ أَحْمَدُۖ فَلَمَّا جَآءَهُم بِٱلْبَيِّنَٰتِ قَالُوا۟ هَٰذَا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ

And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O Children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allāh to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Aḥmad."[1] But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, "This is obvious magic."

Your post says,

". The early muslim quoted this passage extensively but never once sayed anything about Ahmed, instead their source text says "‏يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ شَاهِدًا وَمُبَشِّرًا وَنَذِيرًا‏}‏، وَحِرْزًا لِلأُمِّيِّينَ، أَنْتَ عَبْدِي وَرَسُولِي" meaning ""O Prophet, We have sent you as a witness, a bearer of good news and a warner and a protection to the unlettered. You are My slave and Messenger." (Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 246)'"

Thanks for the proactivity in getting this before Little and posting his response. A discussion between the two would be fascinating. I may have a chance to speak to Brown next week so I'll get this post in front of him.

Almost none of the issues which are the key signifiers and core doctrines of the individual sects were relevant at the time of the Prophet. Whether that's the Ṣifāt controversy, Qadr, the place of the ṣahābah, the succession issues, whether Greek philosophy should affect theology, etc. - none of these things were discussed during the lifetime of Muhammad.

So, trying to pick a sect based on what we think the early Muslims might have believed about issues they weren't exposed to is speculative and that speculation requires first adopting some kind of interpretive scheme.

Also which early Muslims are we talking about and at what point? If we conclude that the Muslim community more or less had the skeletal Quran by the death of the Prophet, some big picture idea of his life, and some sayings/aphorisms of his at least - which adherents to those are we selecting or not selecting?

Is Hasan al-Basri representative of early Islam or Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz or Ja'far al-Sadiq? Are we going for proto-Sunnism or Khariji or Mu'tazilism as "representative?" Are we taking a Howard Zinn approach according to what was the most popular or are we taking what was most popular among the intelligentsia?

Or do we just try to reconcile everyone's views and get what they all agreed on?

This question requires a lot of other questions to be answered to determine what we're even looking for historically, before we even go back into history.

Do these papers deal with the musical component of Quranic recitation as well? I always think that's left out of these genre discussions. It's like discussing Shakespeare while missing that his writings were plays meant to be performed. There's a huge oral component to the Quran and it wasn't originally distributed as a complete written text during the life of Muhammad.

Thanks will definitely take a look. It seems to me that there's a unique intersection between epic poetry, founding mythology, legal code, theological/philosophical discourse, history, and song in the Quran. I haven't seen that discussed…

Taking a stance on it being miraculous or not is not an academic position. Academia is not supposed to concern itself with truth or spiritual claims. Once you do that, you're getting into "polemics."

The Quran also says God exists. This is a question of metaphysics and religion. Giving an answer is outside the scope of secular academic study of the Quran or Islam.

The same is true when you assert that it is or is not miraculous.

So I guess Muslim and Christian historians... didn't exist? And there are no Muslim biologists? What you're saying makes no sense to anyone that knows anything about the humanities broadly.

What ontological matters do you think are settled? What evidence do you have that physical sciences are the factually-evinced controlling paradigm by which all truth is measured? What are you considering "supernatural?" Quantum mechanics puts a lot of very strange things within the conceivable productive capacity of nature.

I come from a hard science background initially, I know what quantum mechanics are at a surface level, and I didn't make that equivocation. You're just reading into it.

Please re-read what I said instead of having a conversation with yourself,

"Taking a stance on it being miraculous or not is not an academic position. Academia is not supposed to concern itself with truth or spiritual claims. Once you do that, you're getting into "polemics.""

You are the one making a claim, merely that the Qur'an is not miraculous or supernaturally originated. In this conversation I said, "hey isn't the whole purpose of secular academia not to make these kinds of truth assertions because they bias the research and are better left to other fields of study?"

It's just mind-boggling to me that the very operating assertions of secular academia are not understood by people attempting to discuss the subject matter.

You just ignored what I said in the comment you replied to then brought something else up?

I was clearly asking a question,

"What are you considering "supernatural?" Quantum mechanics puts a lot of very strange things within the conceivable productive capacity of nature."

I am trying to define what the other person was saying to get their take on what the boundaries of the conversation are. At no point did I suggest qUanTuM meChaNicS pRovEs tHe qUrAn. You're somehow making a strawman of my confusion as to people in this sub not doing the most basic due diligence required to be in any humanities field: understanding formal logic, having a lay of the humanities, being able to construct arguments, and not assuming that their arbitrarily chosen paradigm is some absolute truth without some hefty arguments to back it up.

It's clear that you already have a perspective and you just want it to operate but you can't justify anything about it. Waste of time to continue the discussion

I haven't seen any kind of academic consensus on Quranic authorship. Most academics believe the skeletal Quranic text was complete by the death of Muhammad. This sounds like some fringe Shoemaker theories that are routinely refuted.

The very point of what I'm saying is that the miraculous origin or non miraculous origin is not the point of academic discussion how do you not understand this simple thesis

This topic is discussed almost daily in this sub.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/s/kpfwR18HYH

You do realize there is no documentary evidence surviving that explicitly proves who wrote the Quran from an academic perspective? So you're making a speculation based on theories without evidence. How is this different than having blind faith about any particular theory? The entire idea of HCM is not to interpret truth claims about a text but to approach it from within the paradigm of materialist scientific research. Making these truth claims or saying, "we are assuming for sure the Quran's spiritual claims are false" contradicts the very thesis of HCM.

There are Muslim academic professors of Quranic and Islamic studies. If holding these assertions was baked into the field, which by definition the opposite is true, none of them would be there.

It's really sad when someone is arrogant and ignorant. You clearly haven't read Hume or Popper, or even classical philosophy on causation. You have no idea what you're talking about 🤷‍♂️

You realize multiple academic references with specific names are given in that link and actual academics in the field contributed as well? You're bringing up a fringe theory and then ignoring when I give you a place to do research because you're misinformed.

Do you understand the difference between skeletal Quranic text and Uthmanic codex?

Why are you arguing on an academic sub if you don't know the very basics about the topic? I mentioned that it's accepted in the academic community that the skeletal Quranic text - in some form or fashion with paraphrased and multiple variants - was completed by the death of the Prophet. This is uncontroversial. You don't know the difference between that and the Uthmanic codex, a very basic distinction you'd learn from reading even an introduction to the history of the Quran.

Zayd ibn al-Harithah is also mentioned by name...

It's not made up by non-Muslims. This is so laughable. It honestly seems you're just shooting from the hip and making stuff up.

Muslims have been discussing this idea of inimitability since the era of the Mu'tazliah and the concept of the Qur'an as a miracle.

Where is the source for this poetry competition?

You are verifiably wrong. Look at u/chonkshonk's comment for academic research into this issue.

All Islamic sects came from controversies. They are signified by their positions on issues of dispute. There's two major sources of these issues: pre-existing theological/philosophical issues or internal Islamic issues. I'm segregating…

Thanks for adding that.

It's worth noting that modern Hanabila/Atharis are more philosophically aligned than ancient Ash'aris. When Abu al-Hassan al-Ash'ari tried to write a Hanbali text in his style it was flatly rejected at his time, but ibn Taymiyyah's Tadmuriyyah or Wasitiyyah is accepted as legitimate by Atharis for centuries.

There's been a gradual acceptance and engagement with philosophy across all of the Sunni theological schools that people tend to miss when they transpose modern people's stances on these ancient texts and figures. Modern Atharism totally accepts Bukhari's Khalq Af'al al-Ibad but at his time the Hanbalis all but takfir'd him and it's clear Ahmad b. Hanbal or ibn Abi Dawud, at least in their writings or recorded sayings, would have considered Bukhari's positions as blasphemous.

I don't know of any comprehensive work discussing the development of Atharism specifically but it would be fascinating to go all the way from Malik b. Anas to Sultan al-Umayri.

They accept all of the conclusions of the Hanabila (prior to ibn Taymiyyah), but use logic and didactic theology to prove those conclusions. So they adopted Mu'tazilite style but the substance agrees with the Hanbalis. However, strict Hanbalis have always said that this style and many Mutakallim conclusions are downright heretical (position of Ibn Qudama, Ibn Taymiyyah, and many giants of Atharism)

Agreed on the political point but there are a lot of other wider theological positions that I'd say make up a proto-Sunnism, first and foremostly respect for the concept of Sunnah (Sirah, hadith, fiqh) before the codification of each as an individual discipline. There's definitely a broad movement that had a certain attitude to Sunnah vis-a-vis Quran even if they disagreed on the succession issues.

Not according to the most reliable historical sources available to us. Do you mean, was Muawiya involved in the plot to kill Ali?

I think the best way to understand proto-Sunnism, at least my usage of it here, is the group which had the composite elements to ultimately BECOME Sunnis at a later stage. This doesn't mean they had all of the same exact beliefs or…

I think we're conflating proto-Sunnism and Sunnism proper. Proto-Sunnism's components and tools were there even at the time of the Prophet, but especially after his death. Arguably, so was proto-Kharijism. But since Kharijism is a much less…

I think it's also possible to argue some features of proto-Sunnism ended up being better represented in other sects. But overall, Sunnism used the building blocks of proto-Sunnism most effectively, or "early Islam", and this gave it a huge advantage. Other sects like Shia had some advantages and so survive till this day. Sunnis did not capitalize or utilize ties to Ahl al-Bayt or Ali anywhere nearly as adeptly as the Shia. The narrative of the Prophet's cousin, daughter, immediate household, and family is so powerful - but something rarely highlighted in early Sunni works.

This is mostly accurate and important context. Shia do have Sirah, hadith, and fiqh. However, much of it is a response to Sunni equivalents and a need not to be dependent on Sunni works. Hence we see all of the Shia equivalents much later.

Sunni hadith and fiqh was codified under the Abbassids but uses sources provably older than that, although exactly how far back we can prove they go is obviously hotly debated.

To me proto-Sunnism is the building blocks of Sunnism. You can have a fanatical pro-Umayyad or a fanatical pro-Alid who could be a proto-Sunni. Indeed, many such examples exist. Imam al-Nasa'i was killed in a mosque for his pro-Ali stance, yet he's squarely considered a Sunni imam. I would go so far as to say that the people who opposed Nasa'i could also be considered proto-Sunnis.

I think this totally undoes Sinai's argument here and is a pretty glaring oversight on his part.

The next post I am going to see is going to ask,

"Did Muslims really exist or was it a backprojection by the Ottomans?"

Is there an academic citation describing how Jews and Christians in pre-Islamic Arabia actually prayed?

If not described before or no one can help me let's call this the "Infinity Exhaustion Paradox" that refutes the "Infinity Exhaustion Fallacy" posed in theoretical statistical discussions.

Formulation:

In a theoretical run of infinite possibilities every possibility will be actualized because no matter how remote it is, the infinite component of the run will guarantee its appearance

However, in an actual run of infinite possibilities it is possible, plausible, likely, or even guaranteed that remote possibilities will never occur as each remote possibility may or certainly requires an infinite amount of time to appear.

Therefore the theoretical probability of a monkey accidentally typing out Othello on a typewriter would never be actualized in a real infinite run of infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters with infinite time.

[https://www.aliamin.info/2024/09/the-infinity-exhaustion-paradox-rethinking-infinite-possibilities/](https://www.aliamin.info/2024/09/the-infinity-exhaustion-paradox-rethinking-infinite-possibilities/)

Democrsts have been surveilling, imprisoning, and drone-striking this voting block for 25 years.

His statement "But for the Palestinians..." tells you everything you need to know. Netanyahu has dropped all pretenses of fighting against a particular group or defending against an aggressive enemy. His opponent is the peoole of Palestine writ large. I won't be surprised when he just says "Arabs" or "Muslims" next.

Amazing subhanAllah

This is ridiculous misinformation. People are routinely released after decades and have fulfilling lives.

Distracting from the destruction of Islam itself by arguing about philosophical issues Allah and His Messenger never mentioned is the true zandaqah. Atharism and Asharism are both man-made schools and neither were Revealed.

There is ikhtilaf as to whether lesbianism faces the same hadd as male homosexuality. If I remember correctly, Hanafi view is that females caught in same sex intimacy are given an indefinite sentence of home detention in her walīs house.

Not a good take by Taleb. Just because there are diminishing returns to consistent exercise doesn't mean you don't get overall returns and that the returns exceed the amount of effort put in.

I fiest read this take on stochastic exercise in The Black Swan.

Exercise and physiology are a type 1 (mediocristan) variant environment. We aren't dealing with fat tails or outsize returns here. This is the exact kind of environment where consistent efforts lead to causal returns, even if it's logarithmic.

Exercise physiologists are incredible. Lots of people engage in stochastic exercise. It's called randomly occasionally exercising. These people are not more fit or healthier than people who consistently exercise, which was how our ancient ancestors lived as well (consistent low-mid intensity exercise with semi-regular short bursts of high intensity).

Taleb is an expert in skepticism and doubting things. His assertions and predictions are notoriously bad. He also is not in the best physical shape to be modeling theories on exercise.

I could appreciate a large amount of variability in excercise because of convexity but Taleb in Black Swan describes stochastic exercise as sometimes going to the gym when he's traveling and otherwise not consistently exercising.

The cornerstone of diffusing revolutionary energy is the illusion of "process." People will swallow oppression and injustice if 1000 convoluted steps to determine what "justice" is concludes that, actually, you should be oppressed. All of a person's resolve to fight for what's right is wasted in the byzantine labyrinth of "due process."

The court system is unjust BECAUSE it is so convoluted and complex. This complexity is not sophistication. These processes don't ensure justice. It's a smokescreen to justify routinely oppressing people.

The cornerstone of diffusing revolutionary energy is the illusion of "process." People will swallow oppression and injustice if 1000 convoluted steps to determine what "justice" is concludes that, actually, you should be oppressed. All of a person's resolve to fight for what's right is wasted in the byzantine labyrinth of "due process."

The court system is unjust BECAUSE it is so convoluted and complex. This complexity is not sophistication. These processes don't ensure justice. It's a smokescreen to justify routinely oppressing people.

In Islamic theology this matters a lot and you cannot just pretend. You need true faith and sincere action. In Jewish theology simply going through the motions is enough for salvation and many Jewish rabbis are atheists, it's a kind of well known "secret." In Christianity you are justified by faith alone, not deeds.

Who designated suffering as evil anyways? How does the idea of a perfect God disallow suffering? I don't know any religion whose definition of evil = suffering (except some readings of Buddhism). In fact, Abrahamic religions believe God punishes people in Hell out of justice, therefore some suffering is ultimate goodness.

The problem of evil is assuming utilitarian morality is objective truth then projecting that onto metaphysics.

This is what 99% of posters are missing

...no? What's your evidence for that? So is a really difficult exercise evil? Is childbirth evil? Is incarcerating a serial killer evil because he will suffer in jail?

A perfectly good and moral God can create bad things. I don't think anyone disputes that.

You literally just said evil and bad are not synonymous.

"Not “evil”, bad. Of course difficulty is bad, a headache is bad, serial killers are bad. Pain and suffering are bad."

You're assigning a moral value to doing or creating things that cause suffering. Where are you getting these moral principles or truths from? Please prove that creating something or even doing something that causes suffering (i.e. "bad") is evil. I'll wait.

...no? What's your evidence for that? So is a really difficult exercise "bad"? Is childbirth "bad"? Is incarcerating a serial killer "bad" because he will suffer in jail?

What about overcoming many difficult painful obstacles that turn you into an incredible person? What if you could never self actualize without a great deal of pain and suffering? Is it still "bad"?

You're just repeating yourself and not engaging with me. You cannot prove that pain or suffering are either intrinsically bad or evil. You're just assuming it. This assumption cannot be proven, you just keep restating the thesis - then strangely taken an unfounded assumption and backprojecting it onto God.

You can't. That's the point. This is why the problem of evil collapses. It requires you to prove either that the definition of God necesitates that suffering is evil or bad intrinsically or prove it without God, in order to then determine that "an all-Powerful all-Good God cannot exist because there is suffering in our world and suffering is evil."

You have to prove suffering is bad and that creating suffering is evil OBJECTIVELY before you can take this and use it to disprove the existence of an All-Powerful All-God good. If you cannot prove that, then the problem of evil is not a valid criticism.

Then you can become a misotheist (God hater) but this doesn't objectively disprove God's existence, because you are coming to an admittedly subjective personal opinion that has nothing to do with moral facts.

Although I wouldn't recommend choosing to become a misotheist because if an All-Knowing All-Powerful God does exist and you choose to hate Him, that might not be the most strategic choice.

Evil is a moral designation, it is not a category of things observed in the material world. You have to prove a moral system or adopt one at least to designate something as evil. Pain and suffering are objectively measurable quantities, but evil is a moral determination.

Lack of cultural pride but simultaneously lack of culinary innovation. Who's the last Sudanese you heard went to culinary school and put a new spin on Sudanese dishes? Most cuisines are Westernized before becoming popular in the West. There's whole substrains of their cultural dishes - Chinese-American, TexMex, etc.

Where is Sudanese-American food? We know exactly what kind of palette the average American has but not only do nothing to accommodate them, we also don't learn from other cuisines or cultures or even adapt to new ingredients. Why are we still eating dried fūl out of a bag instead of growing our own or getting fresh fūl from a farmer's market?

Where is the kisra crepe with mūlaĥ sauce? Where is the dajjaj dam'a (yukhney) with runny boiled eggs and chicken that is still moist? Where is elevated maĥshī with crunchy vegetables, well seasoned ground lamb, and no inexplicable rice inside? Where are the Sudanese inspired dishes that are new?

A lot of the popular foods from other cultures were invented recently. Look at when butter chicken was invented. Sudanese food has just failed to compete, evolve, adapt, or grow in any meaningful way. Considering the political climate in Sudan, it seems that our food tradition is on the way to the graveyard. Allahu al-musta'ān

Why do Sudanese people keep thinking some institutionalized foreign funded armed force is going to save us? We are the only Arab country post Arab spring that didn't have any kind of popular resistance movement. It's beyond shameful.

Chi is just the Chinese word for Rizq. It's not some supernatural force. Chi comes from the sky and earth (samawati wa ard) which is exactly where Quranic Rizq comes from. Go through all of the Ayat about Rizq in the Quran then read it as Chi. Then go through the Huang Di Nei Jing and read all of the passages about qi/chi as rizq.

Thank you

You've got this!

Thanks sarsoura :)

You've got this 💪

Thanks!

You've got this! 💪

About a week

They truly are thank you

Thank you so much.

Signed up

Need some cableknit cardigans and turtlenecks for sure. Following!

You can't directly embed a Tiktok video. You have to download it and upload to Reddit.

What I really like about this brand is the accessibility to an industry expert/insider who is super passionate about fabric, cut, small details, silhouette, and ethically sourcing all of the materials. There's so many small details that make each piece unique because it isn't the typical corporate pipeline. Everything I've bought from WvG was literally touched by your hands.

You even see this in the garment instruction labels on each piece. Every single garment has a unique thought that Mauro puts into it.

I'd love to see videos that are educational and get into Mauro's mind. You can see the passion in the garments but not everyone is fortunate enough to interact with Mauro directly.

I think a nice camera setup with a good background and some decent editing can give it that professional gloss, and maybe a model wearing the garment cut in at certain points. But what shines is that Mauro is super passionate and educated about what he's doing, bringing that in full force to every piece.

Yes. Here's an idea how you might be able to put that across in a short form video:

Many years ago you had a professionally done video discussing the origin of the company and what makes it different, on the website. I thought it was fantastic.

If you had a nice camera setup at home to film 4k video of you talking about each new garment, the fabrics, the cut - and what was unique about each one - then you had a professional editor cut it so that each one was short... I think it would be really engaging but also educational.

It could be just you talking about each piece in your backyard or living room. Then the video editor can turn each piece into a sleek 60 second video. Or cut out you explaining what's unique about each fabric.

You could even embed these videos into the product page for each product.

I wasn't keeping track 😅 but it was memorable enough that I still remember it.