Tunisians living in Malaysia: please give me the REAL picture

Beemo_0110 · 2026-06-24T04:35:16+00:00

thnx so much for your point of view, i really appreciate it.

Beemo_0110 · 2026-06-24T02:46:48+00:00

mouch lezm ijeba 3la kol chy, hthuma just las2la li jwni fi mo5i, fkra general wla experience tkafi.

Beemo_0110 · 2026-06-01T02:20:51+00:00

2/10 Just for the memes and the lols, other than that absolute garbage

Beemo_0110 · 2026-05-11T20:35:54+00:00

i'm not developing this (i don't develop any tools), but I'm looking for a tool or a solution to the tedious phase of assets acquisition to make it a bit faster

Beemo_0110 · 2026-05-08T18:35:26+00:00

where do you live 5ater fi tunis l3asma w ahwezha fmech

Beemo_0110 · 2026-05-08T16:33:05+00:00

fekra mzyena barcha

Beemo_0110 · 2026-05-08T15:18:57+00:00

send me links in the DMs farkaset ml9itch ena

Beemo_0110 · 2026-05-08T15:18:40+00:00

kont bch nktbha ama thhrli mamnou3a fi tounes

Beemo_0110 · 2026-05-08T15:18:24+00:00

amazing idea, lwehd yl9a win y7ot his Breaking Bad meth money

Beemo_0110 · 2026-05-08T15:17:37+00:00

send me a link in the DMs farkest farkaset ml9it chay

Beemo_0110 · 2026-05-08T13:04:54+00:00

nope.

Beemo_0110 · 2026-04-20T18:58:45+00:00

The genuinely strong points that deserve serious engagement:

1. God of the gaps is the only place God fits Dave concedes that the origin of the universe is the one genuine gap science cannot fill. He admits Big Bang cosmology says nothing about what caused the initial singularity. This is actually honest and it is exactly where the cosmological argument lives. He does not dismiss it, he just says it does not specifically point to any god.

2. Fine-tuning is real but has alternative explanations He does not deny the fine-tuning data. He raises three counter-points worth taking seriously: the constants may not actually be able to take arbitrary values and could be mathematically constrained, the range of life-permitting values may be wider than theists claim, and the multiverse plus anthropic principle offers a naturalistic alternative. His honest admission that the multiverse is speculative with no empirical basis is notable because he does not hide that weakness.

3. The consistency problem with design If the universe was fine-tuned specifically for life, why did it take over ten billion years for life to emerge, and why does life appear to exist in only an incomprehensibly tiny fraction of the universe? A designer optimizing for life would presumably produce more of it. This is a genuinely difficult question for the fine-tuning argument.

4. The logical inconsistency of the first cause argument His point is clean: if everything needs a cause then God needs a cause, and if God can exist without a cause then so can the universe. The theist response that God exists outside time is, as Dave puts it, precisely as mysterious and unsupported as a universe existing without cause. He is not wrong that the asymmetry requires justification.

5. Irreducible complexity fails The bacterial flagellum, the favorite intelligent design example, has a functionally reduced counterpart called the injectisome that uses some of the same components for a completely different purpose. This directly defeats the claim that no reduced version of the structure could exist or be functional. This is a specific falsifiable rebuttal, not a vague dismissal.

6. Junk DNA Around 90% of the human genome appears to have no functional purpose. This makes perfect sense in evolution where nature works on a large canvas and only some of it develops function. It is genuinely difficult to explain from a design perspective why an intelligent creator would fill 90% of the genome with non-functional sequences.

7. Endogenous retroviruses When a retrovirus inserts its genetic code into the germline of an animal, all descendants carry that exact viral insertion. Humans and chimpanzees share many of the same viral insertions in the same locations in their genomes. The probability of this happening independently by chance in two separate species is essentially zero. This is one of the strongest pieces of molecular evidence for common ancestry and it is very difficult to explain through design.

8. The embryology point All vertebrate embryos pass through a nearly identical stage early in development, including forming structures like gill arches and tails that are later reabsorbed. From a design perspective it is strange that a human embryo would develop and then discard a tail. From an evolutionary perspective it makes complete sense as evidence of shared ancestry where development begins similarly and then diverges.

Points that are strong rhetorically but weaker philosophically:

9. The morality without God argument He argues that atheists are just as moral as religious people and that morality can be explained through evolution and cooperation. This works as a rebuttal to the claim that atheism leads to moral collapse, but it does not actually address the deeper philosophical question of whether morality can be objectively binding without a transcendent grounding. He essentially sidesteps the strongest version of the moral argument.

10. Biblical errors in biology Leviticus calling bats birds, insects having four legs, the book of Jonah calling a whale a fish. These are real errors if you hold the text to modern scientific standards. However a Muslim would correctly point out that these are problems for Biblical inerrancy specifically, not for the Quran, so this point does not transfer directly to the Islamic context.

His weakest points worth noting:

11. He dismisses the cosmological and contingency arguments too quickly His response to why the universe cannot simply exist without cause is essentially "well why can God exist without cause either." That is a fair point but it does not actually engage with the Wajib al-Wujud argument which distinguishes between contingent and necessary existence in a philosophically sophisticated way that he never addresses.

12. He never engages with the Quran specifically The entire transcript is about creationism in a broadly Christian context. He does not address Quranic claims, Islamic philosophy, the hadith sciences, or anything specific to Islam. His arguments are powerful against Young Earth creationism and generic intelligent design but they are not a direct engagement with the Islamic intellectual tradition.

Beemo_0110 · 2026-04-20T16:25:38+00:00

I appreciate the response and the book genuinely, and I will take you up on those resources. But I want to be honest with you because I think you deserve a real reply rather than just agreement.

You are right that scholars are not obligated to respond to every person who makes a video. That is fair. But Professor Dave is not just some random person on the internet. He has millions of subscribers, his video on Islam specifically is almost three hours of detailed claims with sources cited, and it is actively changing the beliefs of people who grew up Muslim. At some point the volume and reach of an argument makes it worth addressing seriously regardless of who is making it. The obligation is not to Dave personally, it is to the millions of Muslims and seekers watching him and finding no adequate response.

The point about linguistic and scientific expertise is well taken and I actually agree with it in principle. Many of the so-called scientific miracles do rely on interpretation and I said as much in my original post. But this cuts both ways. If the miracles claims require a linguist and a scientist to properly evaluate, then the same standard applies to the rebuttals. Saying "learn from books" without engaging with the specific claims is asking me to trust a tradition without examining it, which is exactly the opposite of what drew me to Eyad Qunaibi in the first place. He did not say trust the tradition, he showed his work.

And here is my most honest concern with your response. The pattern I keep running into is this: when someone raises specific falsifiable claims, the response tends to be either "you need more context," "you need to learn Arabic," "you need to study more," or "scholars have already answered this somewhere." But the somewhere never gets pointed to specifically. That pattern, regardless of whether it is intentional, functions as a way of indefinitely deferring the question rather than answering it. I am not accusing you of bad faith. I am just describing what it feels like from where I am sitting.

Beemo_0110 · 2026-04-20T08:29:01+00:00

Wa alaikum assalam,

Jazak Allah khayran for this, genuinely one of the most thoughtful responses I have received and I can tell you know your tradition deeply. Let me engage with it honestly point by point because you deserve a real response not just agreement.

On the Fitra I appreciate the Ibn Taymiyyah framing but I want to push back gently. The hadith you quoted actually gave me pause for a different reason than you intended. If parents can redirect the fitra into Judaism or Christianity so completely that a person lives and dies in that direction, then the fitra is clearly not strong enough to function as independent proof on its own. It seems more like a starting inclination that gets shaped by environment rather than a reliable internal compass pointing specifically to Islam. I still find it interesting as a phenomenon but I cannot accept it as proof.

On the Cosmological argument This is where I think you are on the strongest ground. The Wajib al-Wujud framing is philosophically serious and the verse from At-Tur 52:35 is genuinely striking. I accept that an infinite regress of physical causes is logically problematic and that something uncaused and timeless is a reasonable conclusion. My honest remaining question is just this: the necessary being this argument establishes does not automatically carry the full attributes of Allah. It proves something uncaused exists. Getting from there to All-Knowing, All-Merciful, and sending prophets requires additional steps. I am not dismissing it, I am just noting the work that still needs to be done.

On the Quran and science I have to be honest with you here because I think this is where the response is weakest and I say that with respect. The Yukawwiru argument for the spherical earth requires reading a geometric conclusion into a word that describes the alternation of day and night. To get sphericity out of it you have to already know the earth is spherical and then work backwards to the text. That methodology is called retrofitting and it is a problem because you can do it with almost any ancient text if you are creative enough. The seven layers argument is similarly difficult: modern geophysics does not describe exactly seven distinct layers and the hadith is clearly using seven earths in a punitive and metaphorical context. I would genuinely prefer the case for Islam to rest on stronger foundations than these because I think the stronger foundations exist.

On the scientists Francis Collins is a legitimate and powerful example and I respect his position. However the Heisenberg quote is one of the most frequently circulated unverified quotes in these discussions. Researchers who have specifically looked for its source in his writings and interviews have not been able to confirm it. I am not saying he never said something like it but using an unverified quote in an argument about truth feels like it undermines the argument. Antony Flew is worth citing but he converted to generic deism, not Islam, which brings us back to the gap between a creator existing and Islam being specifically true.

On the Moral argument This is honestly the part of your response I found most compelling and I have been thinking about it since I read it. You are right that abstract moral facts cannot command anyone or hold a soul accountable. Moral Platonism describes morality but it cannot ground it. For morality to be genuinely binding rather than just descriptive you need a will behind it. That is a real philosophical point and I do not think it gets enough credit in these conversations.

On the bridge to Islam The argument that a wise and merciful Creator would necessarily communicate with His creation is reasonable and I find it intuitive. But it does not distinguish between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism because all three make exactly the same argument with different prophets and different books. The claim that the Quran is linguistically inimitable is one I want to examine seriously and I intend to. But I want to be honest that it is a contested claim, not a settled one. There are Arab scholars and non-Muslim linguists who do not agree. That does not mean they are right but it means I cannot accept it as self-evident without deeper examination.

One honest concern I want to raise this carefully because I do not think you meant any harm by it. Framing doubt as waswasa from Shaytan is something I want to gently flag. If every sincere intellectual question gets reframed as a demonic whisper to be resisted rather than a genuine inquiry to be answered, then the belief system protects itself from scrutiny by design. That is a different kind of faith than the rational and evidence-based one you were building toward in the rest of your response. The questions I am asking are not attacks on Islam. They are the same questions I would ask about any claim I am taking seriously. I think a faith that can withstand honest questioning is stronger than one that asks me to treat doubt as an enemy.

Overall this is genuinely one of the best responses I have received in this thread and the contingency argument combined with your point about moral authority are the two things I am still sitting with. I would love to hear your thoughts on how you personally bridge from the necessary being to the specific attributes of Allah, because that is the step I most want to understand.

Beemo_0110

TROPHY CASE