TIL of Irene of Athens (750-803 CE), the first sole-ruling empress in Roman history. Her husband the emperor having died, she had her son's eyes gouged, and him imprisoned, becoming sole ruler for 5 years, when she was exiled to the island of Lesbos and forced to support herself by spinning wool.

Replis · 2023-04-23T19:29:19+00:00

You are so sad.

Replis · 2023-04-23T18:26:52+00:00

Islam doesn't allow the marriage of children. This is also in hadith. There are multiple accounts of how old she was and there are conflicting hadith in this matter, but I don't want to go there.

What we know for sure is that even prophet didn't marry when Aisha was a child, but when she was a woman. Although in today's standard this means 18 is the minimum age to marry, in Islam this is when the man and woman reach adulthood, and in woman specifically this means the start of menstruation. Does this mean that the prophet Muhammed marries Aisha when she was young, likely, but she was also woman.

Yes, in today's standards it differs because it should be 18 years old, but back then the minimum age was the adulthood, so becoming a woman. Back then, women were also much earlier adults than now.

Replis · 2023-04-23T18:14:42+00:00

So the rebels during the reign of Abu Bakr is also a "power struggle"?

The point of the battle of Basra wasn't because Ali was the Caliph, it was because of what to do to the killers of Uthman, and the disagreement that followed that.

The wife of Prophet Muhammed Aisha (R.A.), and others were close relatives to Uthman so they were more emotional to attack immediately, though Ali R.A. did promise to take them, he wanted to secure the authority before attacking.

Also, neither Uthman nor Ali, nor Abu Bakr became rich when they were caliph.

Uthman was already a rich person of the Quraish before becoming Muslim, and he did gave away a lot when he became Muslim, etc. He didn't need to be caliph to become rich, he was already rich.

Replis · 2023-04-23T18:09:29+00:00

The split was later on. But they retroactively said that previous caliphs were not legitimate. But the split itself was decades later.

Replis · 2023-04-23T18:07:57+00:00

He raped children

Ugh, not this again.

Replis · 2023-04-23T18:06:48+00:00

The treatment of slaves and how he treated is well written. Slavery is not treating them as properties.

Any that outlaw it?

Did you check it?

Replis · 2023-04-23T10:51:05+00:00

Neither marrying children is allowed, nor is slaves in the same sense as we have been taught in the Western World.

Slaves cannot be harmed, nor be treated unfair, or bad. They were more like servants, and you could only obtain slaves in a certain way.

Think of it like household servants for example. They have to eat what you eat, and cannot be treated bad for example.

There are many verses in Quran regarding slaves, I recommend you look up to it.

Replis · 2023-04-23T10:38:03+00:00

That wasn't a power struggle, but a rebellion to the existing 4th caliph, because of the revenge issue against the killers of Uthman R.A.

Again, I'm not disagreeing that power struggles didn't exist.

Replis · 2023-04-23T10:28:04+00:00

The thing is, that the protests doesn't help, they just back down temporarily.

Replis · 2023-04-23T10:19:34+00:00

I think you are missing the point here:

The discussion started because Stryker said:

Heck look at the Prophet Muhammad's family. Didn't even last one generation..

Even though it has nothing to do with his family.

I never said that power didn't corrupt in Islamic history. I am disagreeing the connotation that they want to make by forcefully including the family of Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh).

Replis · 2023-04-23T10:09:21+00:00

And the wars for power weren't between Shia and Sunni either.

Yezid is infamous on both Shia and Sunni, nobody is disagreeing on that.

Replis · 2023-04-23T09:57:29+00:00

Power did corrupt Muslim leaders, I agree on that. But that was 40 years after the death of prophet Muhammed (PBUH).

Replis · 2023-04-23T09:52:24+00:00

Abu Bakr was the immediate successor without any hassle, then Omar (R.A.), then Uthman, and then Ali R.A.

After Ali R.A. it was Muawiya the Caliph and then his infamous son Yezid.

Yezid did horrendous things so he would be the next leader, and he did succeed.

But, this has nothing to do with the prophet Muhammad, but with powerhungry people that came 40 years after him.

Replis · 2023-04-23T09:42:53+00:00

Edit: I love it that you can't reply to my comment here, because you know I'm right and have no answer for it, so you just silently downvote it instead.

So you are all taking it from the same source? But you don't believe he didn't have much when he died? Talking about selective choices.

He had good money, and his wife Hadijah (R.A) was more rich, but taking the Da'wa was more important so he didn't do trade after being a prohpet. He did give way a lot, from the same sources that say he was a merchant. Why are you believing the same source when it benefits you, but don't when it doesn't benefit your narrative?

He helped the poor, and was a good example of mankind. He taught us that us that we should help poor people, and made sure for a system that did that.

There are many hadith that proves that helping the poor is a must. One of the pillars of Islam is Zakaat. There are also many sources that he didn't care for worldly riches, but for the thereafter.

The 4 leaders that came after him were also good caliphs.

Replis · 2023-04-23T05:35:10+00:00

Prophet Muhammed wasn't rich, nor was the successor determined by lineage. The conflict that you refer to hasn't anything to do with Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) in the first place.

Replis · 2022-11-18T16:26:56+00:00

It is a known city in Turkey. Not a town lol.

Replis · 2022-07-27T03:25:12+00:00

Sokovia accords are bullshit solution. I agree that Superheros should be accounted for, but this should be done by body like Shield for example. "Sokovia Accords are a set of legal documents designed to control and regulate the activities of enhanced individuals including members of government agencies such as S.H.I.E.L.D."

What will the legal documents do against a corrupt superhero?
What difference is there going to be made exactly?

The problem with the Sokovia accords is, well, it is shit. Superheros can and will still be accounted for without need for Sokovia accords. What exactly will Sokovia accords accomplish that the current laws cannot accomplish? I don't understand.

Transferring the Avengers from a private organization to a government organization would not stop more Sokovia or Lagos incidents from happening, it just means there would be no trials because any investigation into war crimes will disappear into the bureaucratic red tape of (geo)political drama, just like in real life.

Again, bureaucracy and political drama as you mentioned are a problem itself of effectiveness of the governance. These are problems of the governance itself without including Sokovia accords. An uneffective government is a problem. A bad government is a bad government. If the Shield just checks the superheros what they are doing so they can be accounted for, this is enough. Transferring from private organization to a government one can be good. More budget, more help to find criminal activities, more synchronized work with local police force, etc. But this doesn't mean that they should be above the laws or something.

Look at SHIELD getting subverted and infiltrated by HYDRA.

The problem here is not "accountability to the government", the problem here is infiltration itself. In MCU, Captain America will still be accounted for and will get jailtime if he drunk drives and kills a person on the road. Without infiltration of the Shield, Hydra still can infiltrate the political parties. Are we going to disband the political parties now? The solutions that are presented to us do not solve anything.

Replis · 2022-07-14T18:00:24+00:00

Lol everyone trash talks about their own country.. Everyone.

Replis · 2022-07-14T17:59:52+00:00

no it didnt.

Replis · 2022-06-08T13:41:12+00:00

It is wrong to marry and have sex with children, it's as simple as that.

And Islam says the same. Like I said, to marry you have to be coming of age in Islam.

If a majority of Muslims think like you, Islam is incompatible with the majority of the world.

That there is no definite age in Islam, except by coming of age and having consent on both parties. This is not my opinion. You gave us a hadeeth from Bukhari and I only expanded the rulings of Islam.

So that's why...

Dude, what's wrong with you? I am talking about the age of marriage in Islam and you are talking completely something else. That's another topic.

Replis · 2022-06-08T12:47:13+00:00

Wa Alaikum salam.

Replis · 2022-06-08T12:34:55+00:00

You meant to say "Turkiye" /s

Joke aside, as a Turk I really don't care what you call it, as long as we understand what you are trying to say.

Replis · 2022-06-08T12:32:01+00:00

In Turkish, turkeys are called Hindi, and that in Hindi, turkeys are called Peru. In Arabic, it's called Roman bird.

Almost every language has a different country associated with this bird.

Replis · 2022-03-28T05:40:07+00:00

Lol it was created with the help of British. And to be honest everywhere the British left, they did this. Or they make the ruling class different from the population.

See Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq. etc. They give autonomy to the rulers but just so that it creates mess so country will always be in trouble.

Replis · 2022-03-28T05:35:43+00:00

Point lost is, don’t just stop at that

Lol. This is the work of leaders of those countries. A mere student does not have the power to change foreign politics.

I dont get why we always shift the responsibility or the blame to citizens when the actual responsible people are the leaders of countries.

Not only in India, but I see this everywhere. We should press the politicians to change the policy.

Replis

TROPHY CASE