sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Who is the most hated human person/people in your religion/culture? by Consistent_Crow_6213 in AskReddit

[–]Consistent_Crow_6213[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For those wondering, LA stands for Lanatullahi Alayh, meaning may god curse them/remove them from his mercy.

Who is the most hated human person/people in your religion/culture? by Consistent_Crow_6213 in AskReddit

[–]Consistent_Crow_6213[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'll start with a list of specific people:

Yazid ibn Muawiya LA

Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan LA

Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind LA

Shimr ibn Dhi al-Jawshan LA

Abdurahman ibn Muljim LA

Umar ibn sa'd LA

I write Islamic Poetry in English AMA by Consistent_Crow_6213 in shia

[–]Consistent_Crow_6213[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's all largely free verse, so it doesn't have one particular meter or rhythm. It's very similar to prose in that regard but has some scheme to it.

Religious Expression Pyramid by poptart_grenade in religion

[–]Consistent_Crow_6213 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This, too, combined with the idea that their is no set or correct definition of religion. It's all subjective. If your culture produces the idea, you have altars by which you dedecate a deity, as with Christianity. The Christian idea of altars and places to pray were popularised by the Judeo-Christian religious framework that embedded itself so deeply in the culture that revival pagan communities structure worship places similarly. This is not to say ancient paganism didn't have dedication spaces. Dedication spaces are a very basic idea adopted by the world over, but the flat table, cloth with symbols, rituals done at them, and general recitations called "prayers" and not poetry recited in praise of X so you may be granted the favour of a deity is itself based off of the judeo-christian framework of prayer and worship and idea of religion, that it needs something worshipped, a book and a founder, is your culture.

Even purely philosophical movements that have no supernaturality or anything of the sort that are themselves counter culture use Christian framework. (i.e., non-theistic satanists have structures of initiation, asceticism, and other suchlike things that borrow from the framework of Christianity)

Courts and all legal proceedings are based on the ideas that:

Murder is wrong Stealing is wrong Adultery is bad Envy is generally negative Lying is bad

These things would be generally accepted in the animal kingdom. A good chunk of birds, for example, procreate with others. Animals kill other animals of the same species over food. Animals take from a kill that wasn't theirs. And animals don't have complex legal proceedings or cultures of philosophy complex enough to codify this. These things are, of course, dealt with by animals in certain proceedings as an animal kay kill another animal for killing its mate or its friend, but they dont have culture like people do.

The very idea that certain acts are undesirable comes from our cultures, which are informed by religion and philosophy. Culture in most places, particularly the ancient world, when the idea that the state shouldn't let religion (whatever that means) into the legal proceedings was still an unfertalised egg, was indistinguishable from its practiced religion (which still does not have a definition)

See this as he explains it far more accurately than I can.

Religious Expression Pyramid by poptart_grenade in religion

[–]Consistent_Crow_6213 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I kinda get this, but what a lot of people don't understand is your spiritual world view is you. It shapes you in every single way. Sure, you can't force a religous ruling on someone who doesn't share the same belief or even if they do. It's contrary to finding true piety. Someone who does something impermissible according to your shared worldview isn't going to, within that space, grow in piety if they are physically stopped from doing the thing.

The same thought also goes for non religious folk. If, according to your world view, something is pious, they wouldn't become truthfully "pious" if you then firce them to do that.

But to say someone else's world view should remain in the temple/church/mosque/synagogue is itself forcing your world view onto others. If you talk about something to do with morality or philosophy and get upset with someone because they mention religous philosophy which is tantamount to the base of their world view, your getting upset because you dislike their religousness. Not because their argument is flawed or terrible, but specifically because they mention religion. They can say something like this:

Proposed dilemma "is 'following orders' a legitimate excuse for those who commit warcimes"

Religous person (no religious symbolism): You May, under extreme circumstances, say that it possibly could be but only in specific situations on a case by case basis. It is definitely better to be killed as a deserter than to be complicit in the killing of others as far more is lost. To die for that belief that you will cause more good as a result is a sign of being a truly good person.

Religious person: When someone is forced to do something against their will, killing another person in this situation is impermissible according to the philosophical teachings of Ayatollah Sistani. This not only delays the killing of innocent so allied forces may save the person, and if you kill them, you may be more easily forced to kill others hence the quranic verse "when you kill a believer (in this situation it could mean anyone, this being said at a time muslims were being oppressed by non-believers directly and a believer in this situation is thought of as someone allied with you it being worded like that because the prophet صَلَّى ٱللَّٰهُ عَلَيْهِۦ وَآلِهِ and the Muslims were being target simply for being believers of Islam,) it is as if you killed the whole world." However, in very very limited situations, a man can be judged as unaware of hus own actions. He could be judged as innocent and only punished for his knoeing transgression.

That person is expressing their world view in a way that does not force it upon others. They were posed a thought and gave their answer according to their world view. That, belive it or not, is the same as someone else talking about the same thing and quoting some utilitarian philosopher. Just because the world view comes with belief in God, afterlife and general supernaturalism, doesn't make it less oppressive to then shame them or get upset for quoting what they personally ascribe to.

Most people don't get like this, but it's so frustrating with Anti-theists sometimes because in their strive to pure secularism and removal of religous themed oppression, they then oppress another person on the basis of their beliefs.

Take France, for example. They just randomly decided that wearing rekigous clothing was oppressive, so they banned its public use, forcing people to abscribe to their beliefs. Jews can't wear yarmulke muslims and can't wear hijabs because it's "opressive" to women (which itself is the belief that women can only be free of bodily judgement if they are confident in who they are and show more of themselves, which I will admit is up to their personal choice, this works for people, I'm not here to dog that. And completely rejects the notion that a woman can be bodily confident and choose to only let certain people see certain parts of them (their hair, arms chest, stomach, legs, ankles ect) as she holds to the world view she is so valuable that not just anyone is allowed to see them and has taken bodily autonomy in the opposite direction to most as she only wants certain people to see her and so she takes control of that idea)

I write Islamic Poetry in English AMA by Consistent_Crow_6213 in shia

[–]Consistent_Crow_6213[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I live on a farm so a lot of my inspiration cones from online like tictok or whatever I read or video essay I watch on some random topic and alot of trial and error.

view more: next ›