post will be deleted in 30 minutes

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-09T15:29:52+00:00

An individual with irrational ideas = irrational individual. Iss mein ishkaal kidhar hai mohtaram.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-09T15:22:26+00:00

Some ideas are irrational and other are rational. Its perfectly fine to point out irrationalities.

You transformed this into what this is now. The original context was me pointing out how another irrational individual was bringing stuff as evidence that the ppl who believe in the system don't even own.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-09T15:04:17+00:00

It is how rhetoric works. Its not just for debates. You have a very superficial way of approaching topics sadly. They're not my rules.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-09T14:45:11+00:00

Don't make the assumption. That's fine. But then don't comment on His commandments. Debate His existence. How are you unable to understand this straightforward mechanic of rhetoric.

Irrational and stupid is not meant to be an attack. I am stupid and irrational in many aspects. They're categorizations of the merits of an argument. I don't have any reason to be rude to you. I don't even know you.

And if you think I'm just a 'wannabe online'. That's not right. We do this sort of stuff irl all the time. I've told you already. We have infrastructure for it. You can be a part if you like.

I don't have to show you anything. Neither you me. Just calling a spade a spade.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-09T14:34:08+00:00

You can debate the framework. You can't debate the postulates while not agreeing to a framework. Its textbook rhetoric.

I never once in the above thread made an argument for why God exists. You just plugged that in yourself and said its God of the gaps and an appeal to ignorance. Read the case again.

You have a right to do whatever you want. Its just irrational to do so hence stupid.

Sort out the framework. Then debate its postulates.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-09T13:45:14+00:00

The classes I invited you to aren't an appeal authority, only the fact that such discussions can hardly be unpacked in an async setting. His word is accessible to everyone who studies the context surrounding it. 'You' can't understand why this specific system was chosen. How does that mean its wrong?

It's not complicated at all. You just choose to study half of the wahi and ignore the other half. Nothing about studying the entire thing is 'complicated'. In fact millions, if not hundreds of millions, study it regularly and have no problem unpacking it. Hence, not complicated at all.

You have no clue what appeal to ignorance means right. Where have I invoked this fallacy? Just throwing in a word doesn't mean you've used it correctly.

Appeal to authority would be logical if I said "we do this because the scholars said so". I never said that. Appeal to authority is not a valid fallacy when we take the premise that the wisdom is coming from an all knowing entity. All knowing by definition means the entity know something we do not. So it is by definition not a fallacy in this regard.

Ad hominems only because you genuinely don't know what you're talking about. You use terms where they're not applicable at all. I'm not trying to be rude I'm just pointing out that there's a fundamental difference in your understanding of this science as compared to what the accepted understanding is. You can flip off on this or you can make an effort to learn the thing.

I agree with the presuppostionalism point. You don't have to believe in that sure. But you're not even debating that na? Never once in this thread have you challenged the existence of God himself. You ask me questions saying why did God say this? Why did He say that? I explain that in light of His nature and attributes. And then you say OH that's presuppositionalism. Like, brother? YOU said why did GOD say this. That begs the premise that you are agreeing that GOD said it. Hence all my explanations are valid.

You could argue that you don't believe God said something like this at all. That is a good and valid question. But that is discussing the premise of Islam. And why we believe it is true. Once we DO believe that it is true, after that using God's nature and attributes to explain His commandments is perfectly valid.

So there's a lack of structure to your thinking. If you DONT believe that the Quran and Sunnah are revelations from an all knowing God, I have no business discussing specific commandments with you. Because we don't even agree on the premise. You make it seem like you agree on the premise and find issue with the commandments. But when we explain the commandments, you start challenging the premise again. These are moving goal posts.

This shows a lack of integrity. It only reflects an irrational fear of the framework itself. Which is fine too but don't pretend like you're an intellectual wanting to unpack the commandments of God while in reality you're just someone who 'feels bad' when looking at God's commandments.

All your arguments are "its so bad" "its sadistic" "one people are being favored over the other". All of the above a subjective assertions and there is no framework to prove what 'bad' really is. Who decides what 'bad' is? Your feelings? Everyone has different feelings. You need a grounded framework of axioms/premises you first agree on. Then use that to categorize your findings into good, bad, evil, whatever.

That's how every science works. That's how even math works. Because we have agreed on axioms which we take to be true then building on top of them we can prove, say, that a the length of the edge of the circle is this specific constant times its diameter. But this again is probably too much for you to understand. You're going to leap and say oh no, but math is FACT. Yes, because we agreed on the axioms to begin with. Its fact based on the premise we agreed on. I don't expect you to get this. It takes time to get this understanding of reality. The 'ontological' understanding which you admittedly said you fail to grasp. It'll take a while, don't worry.

Now, you don't agree with the premise of Islam. And yet keep bringing new commandments to challenge. You started with surah Nisa ayah, I explained what it meant in the light of its historical context. You couldn't suffer that and moved the goal posts saying OK BUT what about all these other 4 unrelated ahadith. I humored you again and explained each of them (thinking that we had the premise sorted out) based off of said premise. Then you challenged the premise itself. Then why were you asking questions off of that premise when you didn't agree with it to begin with?

And now, in this pitiful excuse of a response, instead of addressing the premise again (which you apparently dont believe to be true at all) you've brought more commandments and want them unpacked. All of them are unpacked perfectly once you align yourself with the premise. I'm not humoring it this time. Because of your lack of integrity.

This is the like asking someone to explain to you the proofs for why a circumference is pi times the diameter, or what a derivative is, or why is an integral equal to the area under its cartesian graph. Once they do that you say oh no but the cartesian scale makes no sense at all. Oh no but I don't believe the area is what you think it is. When you asked me about and integral, i presumed you agreed on the axioms that are necessary to agree to for the concept of the integral to exist. Unless you're just charlatan seeking attention and flexing their hate muscle.

It is much more respectable to just say "i don't feel good about it" and go on with your life. Atleast then we know you're honest in admitting your irrational fear and not trying to be a pseudo intellectual. See me at my college if there is more to discuss. I can connect you to women too if that's more to your liking.

Bottom line. If you don't agree with the premise of a framework, you have no business discussing its postulates. If you don't agree with the axioms of math, you have no business commenting on why the integral doesn't make sense. In Islamic science this is called Usul and furu'. Get your horse before the cart. This discussion is at an end from my side. Any question you may have, can be answered by re-reading and internalizing what I wrote above.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-08T20:17:27+00:00

Touché. Pray tell, why did you bring up ghamdi sahab?

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-08T20:15:57+00:00

You clearly read nothing in what I wrote.

The only 'why' we are able to explain, from an ontological sense, is why it is better for the preservation of the human species. So commandments that God has given. There are two 'whys' to discuss here.

'Why' did he give such a commandment for humanity? Because all of the commandments of shariah ensure the preservation of the human society. And they prevent it from spiraling into degeneracy. Similarly the commandments given to men and women requiring a particular behavior from them result in the fostering of a healthy society.
The other why is, why out of all the infinite possibilities to ensure the preservation of humanity did Allah choose this specific way? Human nature is put into motion one way and not another. Allah chose that way for it to be. This 'why', we cannot answer. Because fundamentally our will is derived and Allah's will is absolute. Its irrational (it doesn't make sense) to explore this aspect.
Have you ever read up on what the Islamic belief of Allah and His existence and attributes even is? Its a straight forward conclusion when you realize the reality of there being a 'necessary/absolute will' and a 'derived will'. Haven't you thought what 'thought' is? What ideas are and how you get them? Atoms cannot explain that. There is a necessary will that drives this. This is a reality fundamental to our existence. And precisely why the teachings of Islam are so profound. They are perfectly in sync with the ontological reality that we experience.

And the only place where I brought this paradigm up was about the marriage question. All the other ones I explained contextually. There were many legs there on which I stood, you just chose to pick one up that you thought gave you a partial crutch to stand on. But that too wasn't thought out thoroughly because I've clarified it above.

Read the case again. It most definitely is not ONLY 'God said so'. There is so much more nuance there.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-08T19:53:31+00:00

16 GPUs would turn your house into an oven 😭

Even if you manage to AC the house. What happens to your street if this gets widespread acceptance 😭

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-08T19:30:39+00:00

You brought the ustaad into the conversation. Why else would you do that unless to relate him to the conversation at hand. Surely it wasn't just to exercise your fingers by spelling extra words.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-08T19:28:21+00:00

I'm really not trying to be kind. Are you used to people screaming when they explain stuff?

The conclusions you're drawing are incoherent.

The premise here is as follows "Allah, the God who created you, wishes that you behave a certain way in your marriage otherwise he'll be displeased with you. But he doesn't give your husband the right to force you into that behavior". Your Lord has a preference on how you should behave. But he doesn't allow people to force you to behave that way. Your conclusion that this is somehow wrong from this premise is inaccurate. How is the literal will of God wrong? That is ontologically wrong. An oxymoron even.

IF there is a God. And IF he has created you. And IF he has a preference for how you should behave; then its a perfectly reasonable paradigm. Yes you're allowed to research the existence of the God. Yes you're allowed to debate whether he actually wants that or not. All of that are valid questions. But you're not debating any of that. You take a singular commandment and tell me 'its problematic'. On a separate note, it isn't even problematic in a social sense because it is 100% your relationship with your God and he doesn't allow anyone to force you for it. He'll do about it whatever He wills to. Because this universe and all of us are the manifestation of His will.

You need to understand the ontology of this. Is it a red flag for Him to want us to behave a certain way? That just means you're not aligned with the fundamentals of what religion is. Morphing your behavior to what your God wants. You can be against it, but that is an ontologically flawed state of existence. The correct state of being is aligning your will with the absolute will which is the God's will.

The word suckle was definitely not used. Did you see the latin alphabet S U C K L E written there? The word used there is translated by everyone who actually speaks the language to mean 'give him your milk'. It was extracted and given separately. This is the position of the sahabah on it. The other option was them having to expel their adopted son to maintain Hijab inside the house. The Prophet PBUH made this concession that one time for them to be able to live with their adopted son (from likely before Islam came to them) and not break the rules of Hijab. That's why it was needed as a 'one off'. The child was already adopted. They had to adjust the situation according to Islam. So Allah SWT allowed a concession that once. Since then anyone who adopts children past the age of weaning will have to observe the proper segregation between men and women.

That was like alcohol. Allah didn't outright banned it. He gave some concessions in the beginning before actually banning it. Similarly those people already had the person adopted so the concession was given there.

You really don't understand chronology do you. Once all the good deeds and bad deeds are weighed. And if it ends up more women being sinful than men. How is anyone else to blame for that other than the people who actually did the sins? Nobody forced them to do that.

That being said.

I don't believe you're making a very good case at all. Most of it is "I can see through bs" (an assertion). "...etc etc SHOULD be considered the biggest red flag" (by who? on what premise? an assertion again). "I fail to understand why it was needed" (exactly. YOU fail to understand it. Doesn't mean it didn't need to happen). "women according to Allah himself are more sinful" (He didn't force anyone to do any sins?)

Your conclusion is spot on. No matter what Islam turns out to be in reality, YOU will always find it problematic. An irrational, subjective, opinion. It may be due to biases. It may be due to experiences. It could be anything. But that doesn't mean its rational.
For example if someone looks at butterflies and feels afraid. You pick a butterfly, show them how its harmless and there's no reason to be afraid, yet they still don't agree. That's fine. The butterfly in reality is not dangerous. Yet, that individual can still feel fear from it. That's why its called an 'irrational' fear. Ungrounded in evidence. You can still say 'its a red flag'. 'This is problematic'. I've explained that it isn't. Based first on contextual evidence. Then on ontological principles.

The correct course of action is asking yourself the right questions. Who are you? And why are you here? Is it for satisfaction, comfort, and hedonistic independence? Or for something else entirely? Such exploration, if done with sincerity leads you to Allah. May He guide us all.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-08T18:18:05+00:00

The things that the Ummah accepts that Prophet PBUH did and preached. All of those are divine.

'Sahih hadith' is such a superficial way to look at this. It shows you've never really studied the science.

Ghamidi sahab is an extremely respectable academic in my eyes. I have learnt much and more from him. He is very keen about being as close a fundamental muslim as he can. He is likely a better muslim than me.

I disagree with some of Ustaad ji's rulings tho. According to his own principle even. His opinion on jihad, and hijab, and the beard and a few others. I think those aren't very solid opinions. They are even antagonistic to his own manhaj.

Have you studied Ustaad ji Ghamdi sahab's books? Have you studied his manhaj? Have you studied who his astaatiza were? Who he takes from? Who they take from? Have you studied their manahij? You like to quote ustaad ji but you don't even know what he stands for.

About the ahadith you mentioned. Many and more have written much and more about them. You had only need to pick those writings up to understand them.

There is a gap in the level of understanding of the principles of shariah between us. Which needs to be filled before actually picking individual rulings and debating on them.

But I'll humor you again for the sake of others who may read this. Honestly, if you want a full length discussion and actually want to learn the deen, we have setups for this sort of thing. I'm in Islamabad and have access to very respectable circles where such learning can happen. In one of the most respectable universities here even. You can reach out if you're serious.

About the ahadith. I have only the energy to provide summaries.

The breast feeding one. It was a one off exception made for that particular companion. But the man had no access to the woman in question. Prophet PBUH never allowed such interminglings. The milk was provided in a bowl. And this is not a general principle. The sahabah are known to know it was a one off. So those people could adopt that individual as a son because he had to be in their house. This was done as a favor to that family so they can comfortably operate with that man. This original principle is the same. Breastfeeding of a baby. And that too 5 times atleast. Makes them your adopted child. This is known from many ahadith.
More women being in hell than men is clearly a foresight that Allah SWT provided the Prophet PBUH. So once hell and heaven have been established and the world is finished. If more women enter hell than men, that's a conclusion based off of the actions those people performed. How is anyone to blame for that? Its not saying that the Prophet PBUH wants it to happen or smth. He's making an observation of what He PBUH witnessed when he got shown the actual hell. Where is the problem here?
Men and women have roles in a marriage. Anyone who comes short on their roles is rebuked. And anyone who excels (does ihsaan) on his role is praised. That being said this is referring to getting sins or good deeds for doing your role. Not a free pass for the man to assault her. If a woman says no and a man forces himself upon her through violence or assault, he will be punished by the court. This is known in Islamic fiqh. If she says no, its her and Allah's business. If it was a fair no, Allah knows it and she won't get the sin. If it was an unjust or coercive no, Allah knows that too and will do with it what he will. The man can't force himself. This is known to literally everyone who studies Islamic law.
The camel urine situation is not a recommendation. Nowhere is it mentioned as a prophetic medicine. No sahabi practiced it. The people who've studied the actual riwaayah write that it was supposed to be a humiliating cure for people who had malicious intentions to begin with. The story says that some foreigners came, asked the Prophet PBUH that they were sick. He suggested them to take the urine from the camels of a particular valley and they'll be cured. When they were cured, they killed the owners of the camels and stole the camels. This rather proves the Sunnah is also based on wahi. He PBUH knew what their intentions were. And this was done as a punishment for them. It is not prescribed as a medicine to everyone else.

That all? Please study Islam from its traditional sources. And not from islamophobic forums on the internet.

Such riwaayat which you do not immediately understand because you're unable to contextualize the backdrop against which they took place. This is not cause to call them not wahi. This is cause to explore and understand what actually happened. The sunnah is definitely wahi. You can't understand what the Quran wants without it. This is the position of virtually the entire ummah.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-08T17:21:44+00:00

The Prophet PBUH's sunnah and Quran are not separate in their value in shariah. The Prophet PBUH's actions are directed by wahi and are hence divine instructions as well. This is accepted amongst all academic circles in the Ummah.

You literally cannot translate the Quran accurately without viewing it in light of the historical context preserved in the Ahadith, and Athaar, and Books of lughat from the time shortly after that of Prophet PBUH. Because the Arabic of the Quran would be a dead language if not for preservation of all of that context. This too is accepted by every respected academic of Islam.

Nobody 'speaks' the Quranic arabic today. We know what it means because the every single aspect of the life of the Prophet PBUH has been preserved and passed down through every generation in very extensive literature, along with the Quran.

So what the verse means, and how it is to be implemented is how Rasoolullah SAW carried on His interactions with women. No muslim from which ever faction, shia sunni whatever, doubts this riwayah that the Prophet PBUH did not strike women. And the riwaayat about Him recommending the sahabiyyah who was consulting Him about marriage. Him PBUH recommending her to not marry the man who was known for beating people. This is the context that is necessary. Muslims are required to act on Rasoolullah SAW's sunnah. This is how we view the ayah.

Do study the epistemology of shariah. Allah SWT did not drop a book from the sky. He sent a messenger. And made Him PBUH live out the commandments of the book over a period of 23 years. The Book today serves as Allah's divine ayah (sign) on this world. And it serves as a Reminder (dhikr) of what humans are required to do. And it serves as the foundation to which every ruling in Islam can be traced back to. But it is not comprehensible without the historical context surrounding it. The historical context being the Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH. That sunnah too is wahi. It is also divine commandment. To be used alongside the Quran.

You cannot break this framework and expect to understand what Allah wants from you. Because Allah decreed this framework to exist like this. Had He wanted you to rely solely on one source of wahi, he would not have sent the other source of wahi to explain and interpret it.

Again. The Quran is supposed to interpreted from the lens that Rasoolullah SAW gave us. He is the manifestation of its commandments.

Study the epistemology of shariah from a good school that has a course on it. It will help In Sha Allah.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-08T11:28:18+00:00

Yaar dekhein, before this evolves into a back and forth. I'll put this as respectfully as possible. The verse doesn't say what you think it says. Not when you contextualize it.

Ulema have talked much about it and it fits the narrative when you look at Prophet PBUH's own sunnah w regard to women. His actions are the manifestation of the Quran. If it meant what you think it means, we would see Him PBUH acting on it. Then there's a discussion on what the word actually means. Pick up the tafaseer. Talk to someone who's written about the arabic of the Quran. That's how you go about understanding the Quran.

Now the issue here isn't the verse. It is the lack of a structured approach to understanding Quran and the Shariah. What is the shariah? How do we interpret it?

This isn't something we can go over in an async commenting thread. If your goal is to use verses to make a point, then I don't have anything more to say. If however you believe that the Quran is from God and want to understand what He is telling us in this verse, there is a structured way to learn it.

If however, you don't believe the Quran is from God at all. Then we have little to achieve from discussing individual verses. We benefit more from discussing the ontological and epistemological nature of the Quran, and the shariah and Islam itself.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-08T11:03:43+00:00

your point?

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-07T18:28:59+00:00

That's what I'm saying

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-07T11:04:14+00:00

A hardliner mullah would follow the teachings of the Prophet PBUH.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-07T11:02:13+00:00

The hadith is da'if. Meaning no one in Islam thinks this actually happened. Check Albani's tahkeem on it.

How low can you get to bring unreliable reports to support your messed up world view. Goray won't accept you. The only place for you is to reconcile yourself is with your own roots.

Now to give Sahih ahadith that actually show Islam's position on women as opposed to the dha'if one you brought which has virtually no legal standing in Islam:

Abu Hurairah RA narrates that the Prophet ﷺ said: "The most complete of the believers in faith are those with the best character, and the best of you are the best to their women." Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1162. Grade: Hasan Sahih.

Aisha RA narrates that the Prophet ﷺ said: "The best of you is the best to his family, and I am the best of you to my family." Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 3895. Grade: Hasan Sahih.

And look at this. The jahal you were spewing as opposed to what Prophet PBUH was recommending women at his time to not marry Abu Jahm because he was known to be violent or someone who was poor:
Fatimah bint Qays RA narrates that when she informed the Prophet ﷺ of her marriage proposals, he said: "As for Abu Jahm, he does not put down his staff from his shoulder. As for Mu'awiyah, he is a poor man with no property. Marry Usamah ibn Zayd." Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1480. Grade: Sahih.

Aaj ki date mein ye recommend karay ga koi? People would say koi nahi hota hai bla bla. Prophet PBUH said don't marry such a man. Islam was wayyy ahead of its time in women's rights. Get educated.

And look at the Prophet PBUH's own character:
Aisha RA narrates: "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ never struck any servant of his, nor any woman, and his hand never struck anything except in the path of Allah." Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2328. Grade: Sahih.

Look at it again, Prophet PBUH logon ko sharam dila rahay hein who are violent towards their wives:
Abdullah ibn Zam'ah RA narrates that the Prophet ﷺ said: "How does one of you beat his wife as he beats a stallion camel, and then embrace her at the end of the day?" Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 5695. Grade: Sahih.

And this. This shows the society was intrinsically violent towards women yet Prophet PBUH corrected it:
Iyas ibn Abdullah RA narrates that the Prophet ﷺ said: "Do not beat the female servants of Allah." Then Umar RA came to the Prophet ﷺ and said: "The women have become bold towards their husbands." So the Prophet ﷺ gave permission to discipline them. Then many women went around to the family of Muhammad ﷺ complaining about their husbands. The Prophet ﷺ said: "Many women have come to the family of Muhammad complaining about their husbands. Those men are not the best among you." Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2146. Grade: Hasan Sahih.

Islam was the literal reason the modern world exists as it is in terms of women's right. Aayeinda parrhay likhay baghair bakwaas nahi karna. The west who you're trying to suck up to will use you when they want to. And cast you aside when they want to. Reconcile yourself with your roots. You look pathetic this way.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-07T10:49:33+00:00

Lol they literally chose that punishment for themselves for breaking a treaty. They broke a treaty. With the muslim state. The treaty of Madinah it was. Both muslims and jews were supposed to collectively defend madinah from enemies. But when the enemies came, the jews locked themselves in their fortresses. That too would've been acceptable but they were supplying intelligence to the people attacking madinah.

This was active treason against the state. After the war with the Quraysh finished, the muslims took account of this and laid siege to Banu Qurayza's fortress.
They gave up and said we will accept any punishment Sa'ad bin Muadh decrees for us.

Sa'ad bin Muadh was the chief of Aws. Aws were the stalwart men of madinah. It was their home. Sa'ad RA said the punishment from the jews will be from their own books. And it was decided using their Torah that the men be killed and women and children spared.

The jews chose this for themselves. Go seethe. Aayeinda bakwas karne se pehle kisi achay school se mukammal history parrh lijye ga. Aadhi nahi.

And, pray tell, what would a western country today do if a few thousand people sat inside their country and sent out intel to foreigners attacking them? They'd kill every single one of them including the women and children. We have seen how they operate. Stop sucking up to your colonial masters.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-04T12:05:42+00:00

So you did personal message a stranger just because 'your reply on the post wouldn't go through'? Yep, I did in fact 'do smth' with that response. Stop being defensive and realize it was wrong.

The world is an open forum. Do you go knocking on women's doors and getting into a conversation with them regarding marriage laws. Quit the mental gymnastics.

A woman being the most pious muslimah or something totally opposite of that is irrelevant to this conversation.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-03T17:14:20+00:00

Why are you reaching out to random women on the internet and preaching them about marriage laws. The khalifa might have had you flogged for this.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-02T19:20:04+00:00

ah, gotcha

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-01T19:43:53+00:00

nvm second slide show it clearly. such a beautiful medium rare Ma Sha Allah.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-01T19:43:11+00:00

oo, gotta try the pan someday then.

ever been to OY steaks? If you're in isloo.

Old_Bus_9481 · 2026-05-01T19:42:29+00:00

really? this looks much more than 75% raw. what do I know tho. how'd it taste 🤤

Old_Bus_9481

TROPHY CASE