Reddit comments from February 2025

How can I get my hands on an advanced copy mr. Peter Parker?

Thanks!

Traditional ones: Khadijah Akyurt, Uthman Khan, Ayman Suweid, Abd al-Rashid Sufi. Academics: Marijn van Putten, Shady Nasser.

Not sure what this acronym means

I think there has to be a complete re-evaulation of the concept of orientalism in Islamic studies otherwise it's just derrided as an epithet. What exactly constitutes orientatalism?

Edward Sa'id approaches the concept from a political and colonial perspective but as we slowly move into a post-colonial and even post-Western hegemonic world order, we are due for a re-evaluation.

The original conceptualization of orientalism was conflating geopolitical dominance with intellectual superiority and then superimposing that onto the study of the East (including Islam). I don't think most modern academics explicitly assume this anymore (although this kind of analysis definitely still exists in politics and culture).

There needs to be an academic analysis of Western intellectual and cultural chauvanism in Islamic studies that casts a critical light on Western intellectual structures to determine if there are unjustified biases which color the academic study of Islam or the Qur'an.

Until that work is done it's very hard to discuss this topic because there isn't a touchstone everyone can refer to.

Not orientalism from a critical political or colonialist lens but from a philosophical and academic study of religion lens. A true skeptical evaluation of the "assumption stack" underpinning these works.

Right now we are working out of a web browser to analyze the Quran and hadith without any understanding of the operating system or hardware that browser requires to operate.

If it's been happening for decades I am unaware of it. Please send some literature you think has reframed the critique of orientalism in duch a fashion. If you know of some literature evaluating the assumption stack of modern Western…

The "assumption stack" of any field are the direct tools you use to operate in a particular science or area of research so they affect everything that's done in the field. Like mustalah al-hadith or sanad or ilm al-rijal in hadith. It will…

Insert gif > Had us in the first half, not gonna lie

What do you think about the reports coming out of Syrian prisons where prisoners had no access to written texts and memorized the entire Qur'an from others who had memorized it? Similar anecdotes are reported out of Guantanamo after the physical masahif were taken away. This seems like a pretty obvious contemporary area for this kind of memory study.

I think this is the biggest issue with the entire conversation here. If oral memorization is always so unreliable, how did Muhammad himself memorize the Quran and why isn't there more variation in the base text? This would require that:

1. Muhammad is literate enough to read an entire book
2. He has a mus'haf which we know nothing about
3. It seems his followers thought he wasn't referencing a source text, so he was giving them the impression that he wasn't
4. The companions also immediately wrote everything he said down to maintain their own masahif since they didn't know about his

Or he had some literate teacher that had a mus'haf who dictated it to him many times until he memorized it.

It seems a lot more convoluted than saying it's possible for some people to memorize large amounts of text.

It could just also mean that some sahabah like Hudhayfah were extremely anxious about potential issues even if we can't currently conceive of them with the evidence before us. Let's keep in mind the apostasy wars and the eventual assassinations of Uthman and Ali. This was not a particularly stable time politically. Without the benefit of hindsight, it's understandable why someone who doesn't even have access to all of the manuscripts would be concerned about something like this.

I think there's a conflation here between what we are considering polytheism and what the Quran considers polytheism. Several forms of what are conventionally defined as monotheism are called "shirk" or assosciation in the Qur'an. The…

I think this begs the question: how did Muhammad memorize the Quran?

If oral memorization is always so unreliable, how did Muhammad himself memorize the Quran and why isn't there more variation in the base text? This would require that:

1. Muhammad is literate enough to read an entire book
2. He has a mus'haf which we know nothing about
3. It seems his followers thought he wasn't referencing a source text, so he was giving them the impression that he wasn't
4. The companions also immediately wrote everything he said down to maintain their own masahif since they didn't know about his

Or he had some literate teacher that had a mus'haf who dictated it to him many times until he memorized it.

How do we solve this issue?

I'm offering another speculation to your speculation simply to demonstrate possible speculations. Your speculation is also not based on anything.

Here is the livestream of the 2024 USA memory championship where competitors literally memorize - verbarim - long amounts of random words and recite it back. They aren't allowed to reference a text. https://youtu.be/EykPcQ1iczE The…

You should read Foer's book. If I remember correctly, the random numbers or cards or words are so that contestants can't prepare beforehand. But he discusses many examples of people using these methods or savants that do the same with literature or the dictionary, going back to Roman times.

Again I don't think this conversation is critical for Quranic history because of how early and consistent the manuscripts are, but I still don't think the way you guys are phrasing human memory capabilities is accurate. You're being too absolute and there are clear examples to the contrary even if it was never a process singularly used to reliably transmit any particularly long text of note.

Why are you assuming the ahruf are a divine concession and that that divine concession is what the different readings were? The opinion that the Ahruf were a divine concession doesn't have anything to do with Qira'at per se, it has moreso to do with the narrations that involve recitations that actually contradict the Rasm.

If you take that view, then Uthman was excising non-verbatim recitations from the masahif and attempting to standardize exactly what prophet Muhammad taught. He set up a council to do so, so it would be a bit difficult for someone to claim it was inaccurate (with the exception of ibn Masud and his students who did indeed claim that for a few generations).

The differences in Qira'ah continued after the Uthmanic codification.

Your questions here seem like you're selected a few not objectively proven views then attempted to reconcile them in a confusing way.

Nowhere in these sources does it say what you claimed. That's how you chose to reconcile it. There are 7 different views among traditionalists to these exact same narrarions.

Again as I stated in the previous comment, the tradition and general consensus is the Quran was written early on and Uthman canonized it to avoid variations from non verbatim memorization. This isn't being contested.

I just think it's a silly hill to die on to claim that this kind of preservation isn't possible or that people cannot do this. That's false. There are many demonstrated historical examples and it's something people hold yearly filmed competitions to do. Is that how the Quran was preserved? No. Is it something humans are capable of? Yes.

Did early Muslims memorize sections or in some cases the entire Quran? Yes. Did people have Quranic manuscripts of part or sometimes the entire Quran to go back and reference? Yes. Does either fact have any bearing on whether humans can memorize very long texts without recourse to a written copy? No.

Not what I said. Strawman. I clearly said I was referring to the capability and historical evidence of people to memorize a large amount of text. I never said that this was a way that any long form text was held. Your claim was that it wasn't even possible. I demonstrated that claim provably false.

Are you familiar with the method of the loci and how this has been used since the time of the Greeks? Cicero discusses it in De Oratore.

The Romans had professional memorizers. The Jews has Tannaim. The Arabs had rāwīs.

People use the method of the loci and have used this/other tools to memorize lengthy compositions dictated to them verbally with precision.

I don't think anyone has used it to preserve something of length throughout history without a written copy, or why anyone would want to do such a thing, but it stands that it's definitely possible and does happen that people can/have been doing this for millenia.

It isn't a point of controversy. It's documented historically. It's been studied scientifically. With enough training, some people can hear even lengthy amounts of text and commit that to memory with precision.

I'm not sure why you removed my comment:

Research on the auditory verbal learning test using the method of the loci & Hopkins verbal learning test https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3955885/

A general meta scientific study on the method:
https://study.com/learn/lesson/what-is-the-method-of-loci.html

An old paper on memory in oral traditions, historical
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-97902-000

General paper on verbal learning & memorization
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022537179901555

I think you'd also do well to read Moonwalking with Einstein by Joshua Foer and De Oratore by Cicero.

With all due respect professor there's an inaccuracy in this comment. Ibn Taymiyyah studied in a Sufi tariqah. He writes that he wore the khirqa (Sufi shawl) of Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani. The largest volume in the collected Majmu' al-Fatawa is…

This doesn't seem like a question. It's pretty rambly. Most of the Muslim scholars from 300AH onwards were Sufi up until maybe 200 years ago. To this day a very large percentage of them are inspired by the Sufi tradition. It's really only some strands of Salafism that repudiate all of Tasawuff.

I always learn a lot from you prof. so glad to contribute too.

What I found was: Dr. Hazim b. Sa'id Haydar al-Karmi, "I believe that the poem of Imam Abu al-Khayr Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Muhammad Ibn al-Jazari (d. 833 AH), known as Al-Muqaddima al-Jazariyya, represents the central link in the corpus of…

Source:

يقول فضيلة الدكتور حازم بن سعيد حيدر الكَرْمي -حفظه الله-: وأظنُّ أن منظومةَ الإمام أبي الخير محمد بن محمد بن محمد ابن الجزري (ت:833هـ) المعروفة بـ"المقدِّمة الجزرية" تمثِّل واسطة العقد في مؤلفات هذا العِلْم، وبخاصة إذا اتضحَ أنه ألَّفها في فترة متأخِّرة من عمره، وتزامنت مع تصنيفه أهمّ كتابين وضعهما في بيان حروف القراءة، وهما: "النشر في القراءات العشر" ونظمه: "طيبة النشر في القراءات العشر"، وقد ضَمّن هذه الأخيرة أربعة وثلاثين بيتًا من أبيات المقدِّمة الجزرية على وجه التقريب.
فالمقدِّمة الجزرية ليست ككتابه: "التمهيد في علم التجويد" الذي ألَّفه في سن الرشد وعمره تسعة عشر عاما.
ويترجَّحُ لديَّ أن ابن الجزري -رحمه الله- وضع مقدِّمته بين عامي (798-800هـ)، وذلك في رحلته إلى بلاد الرُّوم (وهي تركيا الآن)؛ لأنَّ ابنه أبا بكر أحمد حضر سماعًا إجازة أبيه لأبي الحسن علي باشا بقراءة الأخير "المقدِّمة" عليه عام (800هـ)، كما هو مثبَت بخط ابن الجزري في نهاية نسخة مكتبة [لاله لي].
وأيضًا فإنَّ ابنه الآخر أبا الخير محمد لحق بأبيه إلى تركيا عام (801هـ)، وفيه حَفِظَ "المقدِّمة الجزرية"، فلو كان ابن الجزري نَظَمها قبل ذلك في الشام أو مصر = لسبقَ لابنه المذكور حِفْظُها.

[الفوائد التجويدية في شرح المقدمة الجزرية

This is accurate for makharij and sifat al-huruf but Tajwid more broadly in terms of madd rules also draws from pre-Islamic poetic recitation styles, the Qurra, and possibly an oral style stemming from the early Muslims. Beautification/maqamat comes from Arabic musical metres.

Tajwīd is basically the study of reciting Hafs 'an 'Āṣim. So it comes from the Qira'at but as Hafs became predominant it began to be studied with far more detail than the other Qira'at.

So the question is really where did Qur'an recitation rules come from.

As Dr. Van Putten said, some of it comes from early books if grammar describing how to pronounce letters. In fact many of the Qira'at books quote Sibawayh at length or plagiarize without a reference.

However that only explains the focus on correct pronounciation of letters.

Things like mudud or imalah or maqamat in Tajwid aren't from grammar books.

The specific lengths of the mudud seem to originate with ibn Muqla' but reciters already had a less strict concept of qasr, tawassut, and tul.

Jahili poetry was also recited in a kind of tajwid.

It seems that tajwid comes from the Arabic poetic tradition being applied to Quran with perhaps some particularities that might originate with the early Muslims. These rules and styles were eventually codified as Qira'at and as the Muslim empire expanded became very rigid.

I think this is a particularly shallow quote on behalf of Sinai. It isn't just miracles or prophesies that are foreclosed by the HCM due to certain explanatory assumptions. Furthermore, it isn't just some single reasonable "historical…

Wow thanks for this paper. I'll take a read.

No maqamat are also widely used in Arabic music.

I think tajwid as it is today sits at the crossroads of these other influences. People assume it's totally Quranic but as we've discussed that isn't accurate.

What I argue the assumption stack of HCM is:

Epicurean atomism (ontology)

Naturalism (epistemology)

Empiricism (epistemology)

Secularism (metaphysics/sociological)

Post-Hegelianism (epistemology)

The materialist theory of religion (anthropology)

Methodological atheism (methodological)

Modernism (specifically Whig historiography)

Lack of awareness of behaviorial economics/decision theory (cognitive biases)

As applied specifically to the study of history.

While uniforimatarianism may seem like a reasonable assumption as pertains to physics or geology, uniformitarianism in the realm of social sciences or psychology is far more problematic. This is especially the case because many scientific studies have huge reproducibility issues and social sciences are some of the worst in that regard.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

I also think the kind of probablistic assumption you are making is based on a Gaussian bell curve view of statistics. The problem is that reality doesn't model according to a normal distribution. Randomness is often based on power-law or fat tail distributions. Especially in the realms of social science.

So the assumption that something would be extremely abnormal or even impossible today in terms of people is less reliable than when it comes to physics because human social dynamics are more exposed to fat-tail distributions. This is further compounded when we are more critical about the science we are putting out about human behavior.

The success of empirical sciences doesn't indicate truth. This is the famous Dawkins fallacy, "It's true because it works." Stock traders will have a successful market strategy for 8 years that makes trillions of dollars and is therefore "true" due it's perceived efficacy until their fund explodes overnight. A similar analogy can be made to STEM and this goes back to the problem of induction.

>The paper is commendable for initiating the conversation on the problem of reproducibility, but it is quite outdated and does not itself provide any evidence itself for the existence of a reproducibility problem. Of course, decades of…

I don't have the strongest grasp of these concepts although I think I have a semi-decent lay understanding. Thank you for clarifying further and pointing out my errors.

I'm not going to focus on the math and statistics points at length. I think u/oar335 has articulated that better than I can. I noticed that you tend to be dismissive when someone challenges the assumptions underlying something you posit…

I agree with this too actually. I think it has more to do with external human elements than the actual process. But since it is humans that carry out science and incentives are required, it does color the entire enterprise and I am skeptical it's something we can root out.

The problem with some psychologists being able to predict reproducibility is that we can't use that to conduct a meta-analysis and studies that seem to be unreproducible are still "good science" that is used until falsified.

One of the examples I often think back to is serotonin inhibitiors. That metastudy published a few years ago which concluded that SSRIs don't have any meaningful impact on depression was reflective to me of this issue. For over 30 years these drugs have been prescribed and are still widely prescribed to the extent that traces are found in American water supply. But it seems they're no better than a placebo.

I'm sure there's a way to incentivize researchers financially or otherwise to test previous research. Perhaps we make it a requirement to graduate, to check a previous study. Perhaps financially. Perhaps socially rewarding people who find a study that can't be reproduced.

Wa alaikum al salam

I agree with this generally just a small historical nuance:

I'm not sure we can depict most of the Atharis that way. A lot of early Atharis may just have lacked the skill or predeliction to engage in philosophical debates. Ibn Taymiyyah was rather sanguine on the intellect and has an interesting reconcilliation model I'm not sure I find convincing in Dar' Ta'arrud al-Aql wa al-Naql. He definitely has some serious skeptical concerns as well.

Also we see skepticism strongly in some strains of Asharism. Al-Ghazali went so far as to become a radical skeptic for a period of time. He probably is the best example of using skepticism as a tool to build a robust Islamic epistemology (assumption stack).

The problem with some psychologists being able to predict reproducibility is that we can't use that to conduct a meta-analysis and studies that seem to be unreproducible are still "good science" that is used until falsified.

One of the examples I often think back to is serotonin inhibitiors. That metastudy published a few years ago which concluded that SSRIs don't have any meaningful impact on depression was reflective to me of this issue. For over 30 years these drugs have been prescribed and are still widely prescribed to the extent that traces are found in American water supply. But it seems they're no better than a placebo.

I'm sure there's a way to incentivize researchers financially or otherwise to test previous research. Perhaps we make it a requirement to graduate, to check a previous study. Perhaps financially. Perhaps socially rewarding people who find a study that can't be reproduced.

Furthermore, social sciences are probably one of the areas where cultural and time differences have the biggest impact. As we shift geographically and across time, our assumptions or conclusions hold far less weight than in physics or other hard sciences.

I really don't think you understand what point I was making regarding types of randomness and model error. I have elaborated elsewhere. Low probability events with asymmetric/disproportionately large outcomes is the definition of a fat tail event - not some gotcha.

This isn't what I was arguing. I was arguing against some kind of a hard socio-psychological uniformitarianism. I think we too often project, in an unfounded way, modern observed norms on the past.

I'm sure that the assumptions underlying Islamic epistemology are at loggerheads with the assumptions underlying HCM. There are quite a few HCM scholars who are Muslim but I think you have to treat HCM as a tool that is separate from faith entirely (which many in Biblical studies do) or there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on. If a person is using HCM to come to religious conclusions about their faith I don't see how that makes any sense.

> "This response fundamentally misunderstands uniformitarianism (in history) which says nothing about history being predictable or lacking extreme events. OP’s quotation of Sinai is clear about what it means in this context: that ‘the moral…

I'm not talking solely about social norms. I don't know what you mean by a moral ability.

I don't think we're getting anywhere with this but I feel like you're just missing some context/background in literature outside this particular field which is leading you to pretty brazenly hold onto positions or stances you probably wouldn't otherwise.

The Qur'an seems to repudiate outright polytheists, henotheists, and what might be considered less strict forms of monotheism. I think it's a mistake to consider Quraysh as having a monolithic theological outlook.

I don't know what the point is here, but your reading of these quotes is inaccurate. Abu Hanifa only considered wine made from grapes expressly prohibited. Other kinds of fermented drink, called nabidh, were allowed in small enough quantities that they didn't intoxicate. Since what is haram, for him, is intoxication and wine is expressly forbidden.

You're taking it as an allowance. He didn't allow any of these beverages. However, in some cultures, fermented drinks with very low alcohol content that doesn't normally inebriate are common. In Sudan, for example, people drink a sorghum based "sherbot." No one gets drunk off of sherbot but it does technically contain some alcohol. Another example would be kombucha.

The only group that I know of that allowed alcohol were some of the Muslim philosophers that believed the rules of the Shariah were only for lay folk.

Check Wael Hallaq's A History of Islamic Legal Theories and Jonathan Brown Misquoting Muhammad.

It's amazing when ignorant people are condescending. Indeed, it's usually the most unaware that take on this attitude and one of their hallmarks.

I am from a country where a fermented drink with trace alcohol is widely drunk. I've had it myself. I've never met a single person who has gotten drunk off of sherbot. A person would need to consume a ridiculously massive quantity of it.

But perhaps you conflated these kinds of nabidh with nabidh that have higher concentrations of alcohol which were consumed by some Muslims historically and are still today (like banana wine in Sudan).

People drinking alcohol is different than it being religiously allowed.

Since the post is about Sunni Islam and not the Quran or Islam in it's earliest days, I will answer according to the historical views of Sunnis. Sunni scholarship generally responded to the excesses of the Umayyads by emphasizing free will…

Wouldn't the variation between Warsh and Qalun be even more drastic?

Thanks for sharing. Can we get a bit higher resolution next time?

There's two qira'at on that Ayah and the more popular seems to indicate his coming back is a sign, not knowledge.

I probably mixed it up thank you

Have missed all of these because of the local Alamo.

Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:
When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wore a new garment, he would name it. For instance, a turban, shirt, or cloak and would supplicate: "Allahumma lakal-hamdu, Anta kasautanihi, as`aluka khairahu wa khaira ma suni`a lahu, wa a`udhu bika min sharrihi wa sharri ma suni`a lahu (O Allah, all the praise is for You that You have given it to me to put on. I ask You its goodness and the goodness of the purpose for which it was made, and I seek Your Protection from its evil and the evil of the purpose for which it was made).''

[Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi].

عن أبى سعيد الخدرى رضى الله عنه قال‏:‏ كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا استجد ثوباً سماه باسمه -عمامة، أو قميصاً، أو رداء -يقول‏:‏ ‏ "‏ اللهم لك الحمد أنت كسوتنيه، أسألك خيره وخير ما صنع له، وأعوذ بك من شره وشر ما صنع له‏"‏ ‏(‏‏(‏رواه أبو داود، والترمذى وقال‏:‏حديث حسن‏)‏‏)‏‏.‏
Reference : Riyad as-Salihin 812

It was never a democracy. It was always a competitive oligarchy.

Does it have to be Reels or can it be consistent photos/carousels as well? Does it matter if they are in the same niche or vein or is it purely the consistency?

So you can't just pad mindless low effort content until you have some standing to then put out high effort content? It still has to be in your general niche and consistent until you go full force?

What about boosting early posts to get around this? Let’s say you want to put out high quality content day 1, can you just boost your first few posts?

Thank you

This is one of the craziest posts I've ever seen but I'll keep it short.

This is haram by ijma of all scholars no one ever permitted this.

What you are misunderstanding is that the ulama often discuss theoreticsl situations to give rulings on them. All of these rulings are about the physical purity of a man who does this. He is required to make ghusl and repent from such a heinous act.

None of this allows this act. It is just describing that ghusl is required if a person commits this sin.

Ulama also explain that ghusl is needed from same sex penetration. Were they intending to permit that too?

Please stop scrolling or reading whatever you are.

I have studied fiqh. Anyone who is familiar with the books of fiqh can tell you this

You made a guy wait 8 years and the most he fell into was discussing kissing and hugging? But you're thinking about leaving him to find someone else? What?

If I was advising him I would advise him to find someone that has better Islamic values of loyalty, is more understanding of flaws, more willing to overlook small mistakes, and actually wants to marry him. I would not advise him to marry someone that has drug him along for 8 years and then is judging him over it. That's a major red flag.

Allah has overlooked lammam in the Quran, by the way. Things like discussing kissing or hugging or even small transgressions out of desire from people that are sincerely trying to get married.

There is no such dispensation for what you're doing to him though.

You should make tawbah for these minor sins and get married. It wouldn't be right for you to leave now unless there is some other bigger problem.

If your only hiccup is this, advise him, both of you make tawbah, and trust in Allah.

I don't know what you expect from people who are in love for 8 years and not married. Typically, people should get married after no more than 3 months and sometimes after a few weeks. You are also a participant in hugging and kissing so it…

Wa iyyakum

Not even what I said, trash take, go back to victim blaming yourself

Everyone knew Trump was going to continue the same policy. The hope was that he would be slightly better. So far he has been. Saying he wants to take over Gaza is no different than Biden actually doing it. At least we've had a ceasefire for a few weeks.

You realize Palestinians have stopped being shelled right? Everything else you're talking about is some future promise of something but right now today there isn't carpet bombing. How dense can you be?

I don't understand why this argument is so hard to grasp.

1. Kamala - guaranteed continued and uninterrupted genocide until completion.

2. Trump - likely continued and uninterrupted genocide until completion. Very small likelihood of a ceasefire and some Palestinian lives being saved.

The small likelihood came true. There has been a ceasefire. There are potentially thousands less dead Palestinians today than there would have been if Netanyahu didn't cow to Trump's blustering after he won the election. Trump wants Gaza to be a PR win for him and so far the fact that the fighting temporarily stopped IS a PR win for him.

Trump's childish and stupid comments about commercializing a conquered Gaza are some future fantasy of his that haven't materialized but what has actually happened is that there has been a ceasefire.

Trump is not good. He doesn't care about Palestinians. But the non-zero chance of a pause in hostilities HAS materialized.

Since you guys aren't Arab or Muslim and don't have skin in the game you can theorize about these potentialities with no consequence. For Arab Muslims the fact that a single life has been extended or saved is a huge deal, even if we know Trump is just the other side of the coin.

We live in a competitive oligarchy. There was never a choice.

Imagine thinking your cult of oligarch worshippers wasn't going to lead to the same outcomes just because they have more decorum than the other cult of oligarch worshippers that won.

You aren't make an actual consequentialist argument. You just don't even understand the world you live in. Quite sad.

How is anti-Oedipus evil?

Random trolley passengers have zero involvement in creating a scenario where two entities are tied to either track. In fact, the passangers have less to do with causing the conundrum than the entities tied to the tracks.

Every single person in the justice system who isn't wealthy or powerful is getting horribly mistreated. This is how they obtain a 97% conviction rate.

Every single person in the justice system who isn't wealthy or powerful is getting horribly mistreated. This is how they obtain a 97% conviction rate.

This doesn't entitle him to mistrial because this kind of violation of rights is not only routine it is intentional and an important part of the "justice" system.

Should've stocked up smh

True love is choosing someone when the transaction within the relationship isn't beneficial for you. That's true for men and women. If the transaction makes sense and you're getting a fair exchange of value or better, you can't be sure it's…

I think Burt was always a double agent and nefarious. He was secretly painting those horrible paintings and it seems he was stalking oIrv.

iIrv and iBurt are in a romance, not their outies.

What do you think now

Turns out it was actually Helena that wanted to pursue Mark's innie and outie for a throuple. Poor Cobel being falsely maligned.

It may not have been experiments. Burt was also painting those horrific paintings. He may have been involved in suppressing an innie uprising.

- by Ali Shukri Amin

Burt was painting

Interesting but we haven't seen him paint anything complex yet. It seems he is capable of doing really compelling doodles...

It definitely seems that they are testing the severance chip's ability to allow the severed person to conquer woe, malice, dread, and frolic. The part that doesn't yet make sense is Mark identifying Gemma's dead body.

It's interesting that the innies are also being refined by those lookalikes.

Cold Harbor is a file that Mark is working on, Gemma's final test that they promised would allow her to see Mark, and a physical room. Is it possible Mark has been refining away a version of Gemma's feelings for him, and Lumon wants to determine if it possible for the four tempers to be fully contained (since we know love transcends severance)?

I think Lumon is going to take innie Mark to see Ms. Casey once he completes Cold Harbor, under the pretenses od a wellness session, but really to confirm that the "tempers" have been conquered.

Lots of unanswered questions and leads.

Dentist - dread
Writing - malice
Plane - woe
Cold Harbor - frolic.

Milcheck is going to take Mark to visit Ms. Casey upon completing Cold Harbor for a "wellness session." They want to see if they have truly conquered the 4 tempers and if their severance can overcome true love.

Dentist - dread
Writing - malice
Plane - woe
Cold Harbor - frolic.

Milcheck is going to take Mark to visit Ms. Casey upon completing Cold Harbor for a "wellness session." They want to see if they have truly conquered the 4 tempers and if their severance can overcome true love.

- by Ali Shukri Amin

Cold Harbor is Frolic.

Dentist - dread.
Writing - malice.
Plane - woe.
Cold Harbor - frolic.

Milcheck is going to take Mark to visit Ms. Casey upon completing Cold Harbor for a "wellness session." They want to see if they have truly conquered the 4 tempers and if their severance can overcome true love.

I think she won't even be severed when she meets innie Mark. They'll let her see him and then check if it affects her various innies.

Very good theory

Unfortunately many "righteous women" who are niqabi and even hafizhat or alimat don't have emotional intelligence or even if they do, don't want to deal with this. Righteousness in personal ibadah is not correlated with being a supportive spouse. There are many very religious sisters that do not want a husband who opens up like this or can't handle it. There are many kaffir women who do support their partners. It isn't a question of religiosity, it's a question of adab and akhlaq.

Perhaps you believe you are like this, but it's really dangerous for a Muslim man to go into a relationship thinking that just because his wife is religious she will be like this. That isn't true. Many sisters will get off of their Tajwid or Quran class and immediately pity her struggling husband.

There are supportive non-Muslim women as well and I'm not sure we see more of an occurrence of supportive spouses across particular religious lines in the West.

The typical rule is that akhlaq and adab are correlated with religiosity but we live in an atypical environment.

Eventually as a Muslim man you move beyond the need for a supportive spouse to accomplish your goals. Some brothers are blessed with that. Others learn how to cope by relying on Allah alone.

Being righteous and being a good wife are two separate things. A Christian woman can be an amazing wife while a Muslimah is a horrible one. We have to stop conflating these two things

This has been my experience in my personal interactions and the personal interactions of brothers I've known. It is also a big problem in many masajid. There are enough Muslim men experiencing and speaking about this publicly that we know…

As a man I can definitely assure you this capacity goes down.

You can find companionship in a righteous husband inshaAllah. Being a revert isn't a red flag at all.

Do you have a wali or a nearby masjid? Are you in the West?

There are some fiqh opinions that a woman can act as her own wali if the situation is dire enough. That's the position of the Hanafi school. You should try to actively look to the best of your ability. There's a greater harm in not having anyone. That being said in the US you can easily move state from state.

It's kind of hard for me to advise you or give you resources on this comment chain. I'm sure there's a solution that can be found. Trust in Allah firstly.

May Allah make it easy for you and grant you what is best, ameen. It's Allah who decides, not us.

Okay sister. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. 24 years old isn't the end of the world. Just take a break.

There's plenty of sisters older than 25 that get married. I think most of them in US & UK get married over 25.

Any update on the MTM turtlenecks?

Thanks

Uber vs. Lyft