Reddit comments from November 2025

Are you asking about the Qur'an discussing saint intercession specifically or whether the later views on saint intercession are justified? Saints as understood later (awliya) are not specifically mentioned in the Qur'an, so it's difficult to claim the Qur'an specifically discusses them.

There is not a lot of academic literature on the cult of saints throughout Islamic history. Most of the research has been dedicated to ibn Taymiyyah & Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab's opposition to it during their times.

I don't think this is a substantial answer to OP's question/thesis. Pagans would not attribute natural phenomenon to magic.

What do you think about the parallel OP is drawing with the Quranic Jesus being accused of magic with his Signs? Wouldn't the analogy there be to Jesus' miraculous feats and not an oracular tradition?

Since naturalism is a presupposition of HCM you'd be hars pressed to find a scholar working in this method who would conclude that anyrhing didn't have a naturalistic explanation.

I believe you are conflating a presupposition and a supposition. While looking at any particular instance it's possible for a scholar of the HCM to consider any potential explanation, including a supernatural one, and then conclude that a…

It's easier for me to demonstrate my thinking by posing a series of questions to you. You don't neccesarily need to answer them in depth, I just feel like it's a better way for you to see the reasoning to its logical end. Answering them would definitely help the progression, though.

1. How do we know the Sanā manuscript is reliable?

2. How do we know the date of the lower text?

3. Why is the radiocarbon dating used to date it considered reliable?

4. Why do we trust the conclusions of modern science when it comes to radiocarbon dating?

5. Why are the empirical measurements of radiocarbon dating reliable?

6. How do we know empiricism leads to objective truth?

7. What is the evidence that I can trust other people's empirical experience of the world?

8. What is the evidence I can trust my own empirical experience of the world?

At some point here there has to be a blind assumption of, "I believe that the only way I can reliably determine truth is evaluating what can be known by human senses and that I must extrapolate what I learn by my own senses onto the rest of the world. I should not consider things that are outside of the scope of my ability to experience them because I have no reliable way to evaluate them and they do not observably contribute to my search for the truth."

That's called materialism or naturalism. And it's happening in the 8th question. Your response was framed as if the naturalism question is happening at the first question.

>"You need to assume that the world you experience is real (as opposed to, say, a simulation). There's no way to prove it. This is the 8th question." This is really hitting on the crux of the problem. If you assume that your experience of…

Your summary is correct. You are conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. >Plus, it's a contradiction in terms to refer to "considering a supernatural explanation within a naturalist paradigm". Naturalism…

PART 1 >I'm finding it hard to follow along. How is it possible for a "philosophical naturalist" to conclude something is supernatural? Would that not cease them from being a naturalist? And when Little, Kojonen etc say that they are…

PART 2 "As indicated by the above characterization of the mid-twentieth-century American movement, naturalism can be separated into an ontological and a methodological component. The ontological component is concerned with the contents of…

PART 3 The tension between methodological & philosophical naturalism here is a category mix-up (I should have also been more precise) but there is undeniable overlap. Methodological flexibility cannot exist independently of philosophical…

I would argue that it is convenient to reduce the topic as opposed to grappling with the complexities but we can agree to disagree.

>I really do think it's a simple case though; a group of people have said "I understand your criticism of ruling out supernatural explanations. I will agree to not do so, and then we can check again to see whether the evidence favors the…

There is no clear reliable evidence on this issue, even within the Islamic tradition. Most likely different companions had different interpretations.

Standing stones (betyls) were still being constructed by the Arabs for worship of several gods in Negev/Sinai and northern Hijaz. Gideon Avni, https://www.academia.edu/41605092/From_Standing_Stones_to_Open_Mosques_in_the_Negev_Desert_The_Archaeology_of_Religious_Transformation_on_the_Fringes

Additionally, henotheism or even monotheism does not equate to Christianity.

I don't see what kind of evidence Reynolds can rely on for this claim, trying to use the Quran itself to justify it is quite the stretch and the epigraphic record clearly indicates a syncretic mix of henotheistic/polytheistic folk religions.

We should expect to find much less of that, much less emphasis in the Quran on polytheism/henotheism, and much more evidence of Christianity than we currently do.

Are you referring to the Shi'a ghulāt?

These betyls were still being constructed in the 6th century.

I don't understand why we are trying so hard to reconcile seemingly contradictory statements like this, and creating these kinds of far fetched interpretations.

Is it at all possible that different people were objecting to the Quran on different grounds in different ways despite being a part of the same milleu? Why does "mushrikun" mean one homogenous group all with the same knowledge & beliefs at the same time?

I read the post and read it again. I don't see where you suggested that, can you highlight it for me?

I also don't see any reason why we would assume it's the same people raising these different objections. I also don't see the contradiction if we take that as a possibility. There is only an internal logic contradiction if we assume homogenity.

I think you have another unspoken assumption here that the mushrikun's criticism applies uniformly to all of the tales. Isn't it possible that some mushrikun thought he was taught some of them while others were fabricated, others thought he fabricated all of it, others thought he was taught all of it, and every other conceivable mismatch?

25:4

1. These stories are made up and he had someone help him invent them.

25:5

2. These stories come from previous people, he was taught them by someone else.

I don't see what's contradictory here. The speaker being quoted in the first Ayah says that someone helped him invent stories. They could be arguing that the Judeo-Christian stories are themselves made up and the Prophet had help embellishing them or that the stories themselves are original (which is inaccurate).

The second speaker is aware the stories are not original but their claim is that they are dictated to him by someone and then he appropriated them.

What's the contradiction here? It's two claims that boil down to, "he is lying and someone is collaborating with him."

Still not listed

Still not listed :(

Loudon has two showings for... tomorrow. A Tuesday. I don't see anyrhing for Arlington or Woodbridge.

EDIT: I stand corrected. I think Loudon is filling in now. We may still get it.

I'm nervous because I only see Tue, Weds, Thurs :/

For people in northern Virginia, Cinema Arts is a really cool indie theater with a lot of passion. Doesn't have the commercial polish of the Alamo but that may be an upside.

In Islamic theology Shaytan (Satan) was never an angel. There were other species on earth before man, one of which were the Jinn. Jinn are created from smokeless fire instead of clay.

Iblis (Lucifer) was such an incredibly pious Jinn that he was allowed to worship God alongside the angels.

However, when God ordered all of the denizens of Paradise to prostrate in respect to His new creation, Adam, due to Adam's knowledge - Iblis refused.

Thus Iblis was cast out of Paradise and rendered Shaytan.

However, prior to creating Adam, the angels inquire with God as to why He would create a new species that would spill blood and cause tribulation on the earth. This heavily implies that Jinn (and the speculated Hinn and Binn) already had murder, war, evil, etc.

So evil was created by God before Shaytan existed, even if Shaytan went on to become the most evil creation.

In Islam there cannot be war or strife in Paradise. Iblis was a jinn who lived on the earth. Due to his piety, he ascended to worshipping alongside the angels in Paradise. His refusal to prostrate to Adam had him cast back down to earth.…

This

Masterpiece

🤣

Loved this

Loved

Yes

I had so many B-Daman

Phasmalism

It seems that the cycle was invented because at a certain point in humanity's development they reach a stage of prosperity which is the pinnacle and beyond which no further progress can be made. So, when humanity nears that point, their…

1 - same type, we understand each other

2 - some 1s are 1w2, a 2 can care for a 1 in a way they can't for themselves

7 - adds the spice of life for a 1. Counterbalancing opposite

9 - can take the energy of a 1 and calm it down

Not typically good matches:

3 - come off as superficial & insincere to 1s

4 - come off as neurotic & self absorbed

5 - come off as armchair elitists

6 - come off as self-centered & cowardly

8 - will lead to a fight

Each two people have to be taken on a case by case basis but these are just the patterns I've noticed. Most of my good friends are 1. Have 2s in the family. Had most fun with 7s and most comfortable with 9s.

3s represent most of the things I find problematic in my community. 4s I tend to scoff at & end the interaction fast. 5s I dislike for same reason as 3s but the 5s are more genuine. 6 is like a 3 or a 5 that isn't even getting anything out of being self centered but subsisting. 8s 😵‍💫 always leads to a domination contest.

The problem comes in when you meet someone at a healthier stage so they seem to be another type (like a 6w7) then something goes wrong and they go into their stress unhealthy states (6w3). Then you feel betrayed.

Lego needs to hire you for an official set

Different game type but this is what happens in Enderal


Zhangye National Geopark in China

Quality is atrocious

Looks like an ensō to me

You aren't hiring for a machine learning engineer. You're hiring for a SWE with devOps and maybe some solutions architecture. The fact that it's an AI API is irrelevant, this is just API design. ML deals with the underlying tech behind... ML. None of that was described in the JD here.

Stand by Me is a masterpiece as well

You cannot go into marriage with the primary focus of having a child. The primary focus of the marriage has to be Allah first and your relationship second. It is in Allah's Hands as to whether you will ever have a child.

Secondly you made dua for Allah to facilitate your getting married and your dua was already granted before you made it. There has never, in human history, been such a lopsided marriage market which makes it easy for women to get married.

If you are not finding candidates of suitable religiosity then increase your surface area exposure to meet such candidates. Clearly, your previous methods & places you were looking were not fruitful. Try something different.

There are matchmakers. There are platforms. You have the option of approaching someone you are interested in.

May Allah make it easy

The marriage market is challenging for men as well. It's just a horrible situation. I don't know why you don't have the option of matchmakers or apps. What I will tell you is no one is going to swoop down and save you sister. Either you approach brothers you think are attractive candidates in real life, or you expand where religious men can find you. Otherwise the problem has no clear solution. You have to find a way to make yourself more easily available to more of the men you would like to consider marrying especially considering prejudices. It's a numbers game.

Here is a lecture I did combining traditional Islamic scholarship from both sides of the debate with modern archeological findings: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=reIL-x_tf2w

So talented

If free will doesn't exist then how are the judges supposed to correct their behavior that they have no control over. Making a decision to change behavior based on updating your world view is a decision which implies free will. So are you saying to falsely convince judges free will doesn't exist but hope that they don't realize this logic applies to their judgement?

Yall need to read Kierkegaard

Liberal democracies have created climate disaster, run-away technocapitalism, plummeting fertility, the deadliest wars mankind has ever seen (WWI, WW2, Vietnam, MENA wars), hyper individualism, & atomism. The reason why autocracy is being voted in across the globe is because the average Joe is disenchanted with liberal democracy. Perhaps half of America is either Dark Enlightenment (pro-Trump) or wants more radical forms of liberalism (pro-Sanders/Mamdani).

On essentially every front the architects of modernist liberalism have been wrong.

It's important to acknowledge Fukiyama was just applying Hegel's utopian historiography on the late '90s and this was a widely acclaimed position at the time...

You are literally just parroting Fukiyama's arguments and it's not just naieve but objectively disproven. There is no overarching generator of history that moves people towards "liberal democracy." The most powerful liberal democracy has been a competitive oligarchy arguably since inception (the US) and the only places where liberal democracy exists in reality are weak vassal states in Scandanavia.

But what you call liberal democracy, i.e. technocapitalism, is literally on the brink of destroying humanity. No one buys this utopianism of fReEdOM & sCiEnCe will fix all of humanities problems but Silicon Valley despots. That's if they even sincerely believe in it.

The international human rights order is what gave birth to the Gaza g*nocide. Liberal democracy is what gave us climate change. It's what gave us existential fertility problems. Widespread social collapse & atomization.

You cannot, from a philosophical or empirical level, demonstrate how liberal democracy is even better for anyone let alone, as Hegel or Fukiyama argued, inevitable. It's just a blind faith proposition like animism or belief in the "invisible hand" of capitalist markets.

Case in point is Fukiyama's End of History.

👏

US & Israel are white settler colonial states.

Socialism is not antithetical to liberal democracy. Communist autocratic states were also Hegelian, they just interpreted Hegel according to Marx. Ultimately, the capitalist Hegelians won out over the communist Hegelians. Different flavor…

There's no point in continuing a discussion on a philosophy sub with someone who clearly hasn't taken 100 series courses in college. There are socialist liberal democracies across the globe. The most idyllic and exemplary liberal democracies are socialist states today. You think being a liberal democrat has nothing to do with Hegelianism.

Please don't engage in discussions for which you have absolutely no context or background. Go back and get a basic education on these issues first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism?wprov=sfla1

BTW The End of History and the Last Man are direct quotes from Hegel himself. The confident ignorance is astounding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_history?wprov=sfla1

There's no point in engaging with someone who doesn't have a basic question and then wants me to answer things like,

"Why is no one trying to industrialize?"

What does that even mean? The only countries still "industrializing" are third world countries, if you can even call that. Perhaps you meant, why is no one avoiding industrialization?

Please learn how to construct basic arguments & questions.

Turns out that Muslim Andalus & Ottoman empire actually were the peak of sustainable civilization. Almost like the industrial revolution & modernism were a mistake 🤔

Add Enderal to this list and play Skywind when it comes out

Enderal is Skyrim with narrative depth

A lot of the VA was better than Skyrims

La hawla wa la quwata ila billah

The amount of ignorance in these comments is astounding. Speaking anout the Din from ignorance is considered more egregious than minor shirk. People here are calling a widely narrated variant of the tashahud a bidd'ah.

'We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (ﷺ) , but when he had died, we used to say, "Peace be on the Prophet."'

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6265

This is in sahih al Bukhari.

'We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (ﷺ) , but when he had died, we used to say, "Peace be on the Prophet."'

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6265

This is in sahih al Bukhari.

You have lied against the Sunnah.

'We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (ﷺ) , but when he had died, we used to say, "Peace be on the Prophet."'

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6265

This is in sahih al Bukhari.

It would be better for you not to speak about Din because it's clear you don't have the training.

The Sunnah is not limited to what you find an explicit hadith for. Ijma of Sahabah is considered sunnah by all ulama. Amal ahl Madina is considered sunnah by the Malikis & Taymiyyans.

The sahabah who used this other tashahud did so because they believed it was Sunnah. Anyone who chooses any version of the tashahud is following a Sunnah.

Regardless of whether it is the PREFERRED version of a madh'hab at any particular point of time doesn't invalidate any other version of the tashahud.

You are going from calamity to calamity

There is no politeness when someone is calling the Sunnah a bidd'ah or a bidd'ah as the sunnah. You would know this if you actually read a book on adab.

Here is a lecture I did combining traditional Islamic scholarship from both sides of the debate with modern archeological findings: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=reIL-x_tf2w

An-Nur 24:3

"The fornicator does not marry except a [female] fornicator or polytheist, and none marries her except a fornicator[1] or a polytheist, and that [i.e., marriage to such persons] has been made unlawful to the believers."

It is haram for a virgin man to marry a non-virgin (unchaste) woman by default, and vice versa.

Hiding sins in the terminology of the ulama refers to bragging & boasting. These women are not proud of what they did. Rather, they are hiding their shameful deed in order to gain a worldly advantage. THIS kind of hiding can be haram.

An-Nisa' 4:135

"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allāh, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allāh is more worthy of both.[1] So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allāh is ever, of what you do, Aware."

If the woman believes the man is expecting to marry a virgin but is too shy to ask her, then she is taking advantage of him & it is a kind of deception which can invalidate the marriage contract - just like hiding a health defect, lying about lineage, etc. In such a case, the husband can have the contract nullified (faskh) and retrieve the mahr he gave her/any remaining assets.

The man should very clearly make his preferences known and she should subtly remove herself from further discussions.

'We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (ﷺ) , but when he had died, we used to say, "Peace be on the Prophet."'

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6265

This is in sahih al Bukhari.

Obviously it's advisable to marry someone who can take care of her but setting this up as a rule is ridiculous. This is why Muslims don't get married during times of war or hardship anymore. Additionally, many of our righteous forefathers were not propertied. Should they have not been married?

Khadija had a better financial circumstance than rasulAllah. After nabuwwa, rasulAllah went through some extremely difficult times where they did not have food cooking in their home for months.

Even later on when rasulAllah did have wealth, he gave nearly all of it away. We would describe the living standards of the mothers of the believers as being severely impoverished today.

Just a very un-nuanced take.

The reason is clear and obvious in the Quran. It is mentioned exactly where this rule is mentioned.

Al-Baqarah 2:282

"And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of them [i.e., the women] errs, then the other can remind her."

Situation 1:

Ahmad & Abdullah sign a contract. Sharif and Luqman are witnesses. If Sharif forgets, Luqman can remind him, and vice versa.

Situation 2:

Ahmad & Abdullah sign a contract. Sharif & Aisha are witnesses. Sharif & Aisha are not related, so they don't speak in private. Sharif forgets. Or Aisha forgets. They can't speak privately to remind each other.

This situation is not allowed.

Situation 3:

Ahmad & Abdullah sign a contract. Sharif is a witness. Aisha & Fatima are witnesses. They are not related to Sharif, so they can't speak privately with him. If Sharif forgets, we still need two witnesses. Now we have Aisha & Fatima. If one of them forgets, they can remind each other.

The reason is clear and obvious in the Quran. It is mentioned exactly where this rule is mentioned.

Al-Baqarah 2:282

"And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of them [i.e., the women] errs, then the other can remind her."

Situation 1:

Ahmad & Abdullah sign a contract. Sharif and Luqman are witnesses. If Sharif forgets, Luqman can remind him, and vice versa.

Situation 2:

Ahmad & Abdullah sign a contract. Sharif & Aisha are witnesses. Sharif & Aisha are not related, so they don't speak in private. Sharif forgets. Or Aisha forgets. They can't speak privately to remind each other.

This situation is not allowed.

Situation 3:

Ahmad & Abdullah sign a contract. Sharif is a witness. Aisha & Fatima are witnesses. They are not related to Sharif, so they can't speak privately with him. If Sharif forgets, we still need two witnesses. Now we have Aisha & Fatima. If one of them forgets, they can remind each other.

This is not what Allah says in the Quran. Most men are ignorant of financial contract law.

IQ is not a reliable measure of intelligence for a lot of reasons but your understanding of IQ tests is accurate. Overall, men have more outliers, and enough very intelligent men that skew the average male intelligence higher than women. But, removing outliers, statistically the average woman is ever so slightly more intelligent than the average man.

This is with respect to mathematics, linguistic reasoning, & pattern recognition. Spiritual, moral, creative, business, social, romantic, emotional, security, & spatial intelligence are not measured on any IQ tests.

On the intelligence side it's worth noting women have almost double the incidence of alzheimer's, it starts earlier, and it's usually worse in women. However, the reason for testimony is clearly given in the Quran.

The Quran always explains itself clearly & immediately in a self-validating fashion.

The problem that you have with your reasoning is it flies in the face of the Ayah. "They don't even need to talk to each other at all. A judge can bring up a witness and talk to that witness and if their stories don't add up, then it's an…

I addressed all of your points in my previous two comments.

The idea that men are more knowledgeable about financial contracts is true in aggregate but not true in most cases. The average Muslim man knows about as much about Islamic contract law as the average Muslim woman. Which is to say nothing.

The Ayah is extremely clear. Two male witnesses. If there's only one man, two women so they can remind each other. I don't know how it could be any more explicit.

Nothing in Islam requires me to believe the opinion of this mufti and no additional evidence was given. Your understanding of this Ayah fails to take into account..
this Ayah. Wa salam.

M. Knight Shyamalan came out of nowhere with the 6th Sense and has never made anything remotely as good since.

I am really concerned Jordan Peele & Ari Aster were also one hit wonders.

All three of these directors made instant classic horror films as their first big hits. There is still hope for Peele & Aster but Shyamalan's career has been disappointment after disappointment.

Psychologically people are happier if they are the top of their community. So having a house like this in a huge expanse of land with bigger or equivalent houses being the only neighbors will lead to a relatively worse psychological effect than having a McMansion in suburbia.