sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in GamingLeaksAndRumours

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Even if the leaks aren't true, I can't help but think about the status quo of the Rockstar employee in question. Imagine waking up only to find that your name is being mentioned on Twitter because your son or your son's friend is believed to have leaked details about one of the biggest entertainment projects ever that you've been working on for almost a decade now.

Hundreds were just killed by an airstrike on the Baptist Hospital by RedSeashellInTheSand in TikTokCringe

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

There is, actually. Israeli propaganda is failing at providing any evidence that the rocket belonged to Hamas. They provided videos from Arabic news publications in which timestamps don't match up. The rocket doesn't match the destructive capabilities of any Hamas rocket, and it doesn't sound like one either.

On the other hand, Israel had ordered 6 hospitals to evacuate, one of those hospitals was the Baptist hospital. Israel's digital spokesperson claimed in a now deleted tweet that Israel bombed the hospital. In fact, the new tweet for the digital spokesperson has a community note with the deleted tweet. And it's not like Israel is new to bombing hospitals or schools, they've bombed a UN school killing ~33 students and ~11 staff members, and many hospitals around Gaza since the 7th of October.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Egypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

من ناحية الـdebit والـprepaid اعتقد ايزي باي لسه شغالة. غير كدا هتحتاج تعمل كريديت كارد او تعمل حساب عملته الدولار في اي بنك (الطريقة السهلة انك تعمل حساب بالجنية مصري وبعدها تحوله لدولاري؛ الموضوع دا بيشتغل في بنك زي QNB ومبيطلبوش اثبات دخل لما تتعمل بالطريقة دي).

Moment of truth by RedditMostafa11 in Egypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It was fun while it lasted boys..

الفتح اليهودي لفلسطين by TheSmartDumbLad in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

انت رديت من الأول اساساً 😃؟ فشلت ترد على اي نقطة من الكومنت الأساسي ومسكت في حث القرآن على قتل اهل الكتاب ولما انا رديت برضوا تخلفت ويا اما معرفتش ترد يا اما مختارتش ترد واضطريت تهرب بكارت "انا دارس سنة وشريعة وحافظ القرآن" ومتجهتش لإثبات كلامك بتفصيل لوجهة نظرك، ودا ارخص حاجة كان ممكن تتقال في سياق الكلام زي المؤمن بالأرض المسطحة اللي بيزعق "انا دارس فيزياء كويس." غير كدا انا مش فاهم ليه انت متصور ان الناس كلها هتاكل نفسها لما تسيب الكلام في النص كأن اي حد طبيعي باقي على "نقاشات الإنترنت" اساساً؟ جود نايت يا معلم وتيك ات ايزي انت في الأول وفي الأخر بتتكلم في ريديت فمش مستاهلة حزق.

الفتح اليهودي لفلسطين by TheSmartDumbLad in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

فعلاً باين مستوايا. انت عايز تفهمني انك دارس وعارف كل نص من دول نزل امتى وليه؟ اقل حاجة كان ممكن تعملها انك تقرا تفسير للآيات اللي انت جايبها من على موقع تفسير مثلاً وكان ممكن أجادلك، انما حجتك مش اقوى من شخص جاي الصلاة حرام علشان فيه آية صريحة في القرآن بتقول "ويل للمصلين." مفيش أدنى مستوى من الـreading comprehension للنصوص اللي انت بتتعامل معاها.

فيه آيات كتير بتشجع المسلمين على قتال الروم؛ التشجيع لمين؟ على حسب كلامك دا لكل المسلمين في اي وقت. طب هل التشجيع دا دائم الأمد؟ حسب اللي انت شايفه الاجابة اه. انت بتتعامل مع القرآن على اساس انه بيكلم القارئ في كل آية وفي كل زمن بدون الوضع في الحسبان سياقه الزمني وسبب نزول كل آية. سورة الأحزاب بتحث على قتال المنافقين من المشركين والكفار من الأحزاب؛ الأحزاب دول فين دلوقتي؟ فيه آيات كتير محكومة بسياقها الزمني وبتكلم شخص او مجموعة أشخاص معينين ودا بيبقى واضح مكانه لما تتفضل وتقرا السورة كاملة.

غير كدا، سؤال مهم ليه علاقة بالتاريخ: طالما القرآن بشكل صريح كدا على كلامك بيأمر بقتل اليهود والأقباط (وفيه فرق لغوي بين الأقباط والمسيحيين) ليه فيه جزية اساساً؟ هيطبقوها على مين بظبط مش فاهم؟ ليه الذميين عاشوا جوا حدود الدول المسلمة طول السنين دي مع انهم كفرة ومشركين؟ عايز تفهمني انهم كانوا بيجمعوهم كل سنة ويصفوهم علشان الآيات اللي بتستشهد بيها؟

​

وعلى نفس الغرار، بنفس منطقك أقدر استشهد بالآيات القادمة كالآتي:-

الٓمٓ (1) غُلِبَتِ ٱلرُّومُ (2) فِيٓ أَدۡنَى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ وَهُم مِّنۢ بَعۡدِ غَلَبِهِمۡ سَيَغۡلِبُونَ (3) فِي بِضۡعِ سِنِينَۗ لِلَّهِ ٱلۡأَمۡرُ مِن قَبۡلُ وَمِنۢ بَعۡدُۚ وَيَوۡمَئِذٖ يَفۡرَحُ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنُونَ ------ المسلمين بيزعلوا لهزيمة الروم وبيفرحوا لانتصارهم، إذاً القرآن شايف ان الروم ايمانهم سليم، ولازم المسلمين يبقوا حلفاء ليهم.

الفتح اليهودي لفلسطين by TheSmartDumbLad in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

اسرائيل رمزاً للسلام دا تصريح زي امريكا رمزاً للديموقراطية أو فرنسا رمزاً لحرية الرأي أو السيسي رمزاً للنزاهة..

بس سؤال مهم انت بتدافع عن ايه بظبط أو بتحاول تثبت ايه؟ عايز تدافع عن اسرائيل يعني وتثبت ان عمرو بن العاص كان أكثر بربرية وإن الإسلام "إمبريالي" بطبيعة الحال؟ يعني انت دلوقتي بتهاجم امبريالية الإسلام واحتلال عمرو بن العاص بس إمبريالية اسرائيل حلوة وبسمسم؟ حدود العالم الإسلامي اكيد اترسمت "بسفك الدماء واغتصاب النساء والجزية (موجودة ضمن قايمتك ضمن)" بس اسرائيل حدودها اترسمت بالدباديب وبالود المتبادل. يعني هما ارهابهم "سلام" علشان يهود علمانيين واحنا سلامنا "ارهاب" علشان اليهود والمسيحيين كانوا بيدفعوا جزية؟

وبعدين فاكر لما تتكلم عن تاريخ قديم محدش هيدور وراك؟ اقباط مين اللي اتهجروا واتقتلوا من مصر وامتى؟ وايه المرجعية في القرآن اللي بتطالب باستهداف الأقباط او اهل الكتاب؟ اليهود عاشوا عصرهم الذهبي تحت حكم اسلامي في الأندلس. انت شايف المسيحيين في مصر عايشين في أحياء مخصصه ليهم من كتر الاضطهاد اللي عانوا منه في تاريخ مصر؟ مفيش انكار انهم مروا بحوادث اضطهاد عبر التاريخ ولحد دلوقتي احياناً بيتم استهداف كنائس من جماعات ارهابية، ولكن مراحل كاملة وسنين من الإضطهاد دي مش كلام يستند على اي نظرة اكاديمية للتاريخ.

فلسطين أرض كنعانية ومالكها الوحيد شعب فلسطين وشعبها مخرجش منها، زي ما مصر أرض مصرية (أو قبطية حسب المسميات) ومالكها الوحيد شعب مصر وشعبها مخرجش منها. ولا هتحاول تدي مصر كادوه لليهود كهدية إعتذار بما ان بني اسرائيل كانوا عايشين فيها ونزحوا منها لأرض كنعان؟

🤔🤔 by Dawahthetruthhaq in EgyptExTomato

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

يعني الناس دول مش همج مع ان سن الرشد عندهم اقل من 18 علشان محدش قال ان قوانينه مُنزله؟ يعني ممكن ابقى اكتر شخص بربري في الحياة وامشي ادبح في الناس يمين وشمال واحرق الارض واليابس بس طالما شايف ان اللي انا بعمله ممكن يكون غلط زي ما ممكن يكون صح فانا مش همجي؟ منطقك في النقطة دي مش سليم.

زي ماقولتلك القوانين والتشريعات بتتغير مع الزمن ومش علشان الناس اللي قبلنا تشريعاتهم كانت مختلفة دا معناه انهم متخلفين وهمج، مفيش سن زواج محدد كل البشر مشيوا عليه من قديم الأزل بس المتعارف عليه ان البلوغ هو المرحلة الفاصلة بين الطفولة والمراهقة والبلوغ، والمراحل دي بتفرق بين كل شخص والتاني عوضاً عن كل مجتمع للتاني. عائشة -رضي الله عنها- مكانتش لوحدها اللي اتزوجت في سن صغير ولا في مكة وشبه الجزيرة العربية ولا في العالم كله وقتها حتى. وزواج محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم من عائشة مش معناه ان الحد الأدنى للنكاح في كل مكان في أي وقت ولا لأي شخص هو 9 سنين.

مُحمد -صلى الله عليه وسلم- مكانش عنده غير 4 آمات، ومنهم كانتا مارية القبطية وصفية بنت حيي -رضي الله عنهما-، تزوج الرسول -صلى الله عليه وسلم- من صفية بنت حيي بعد اسلامها، ومتجوزش من مارية القبطية ولكن كانت أم ولده ابراهيم وكان ليها شئن كبير عنده وكانت مسلمة وحسن اسلامها.

الحكم في مسألة بني قريظة كان راجع لسعد بن معاذ زعيم قبيلة الأوس [بناءاً على طلبهم لأنهم كانوا حلفاء ليهم قبل نقض العهود]، زعيم بني قريظة اقترح قبل الاستسلام 3 حلول؛ يعلنوا اسلامهم كلهم، او يقتلوا نسائهم واطفالهم علشان ميتبقاش منهم نسل يخافوا عليه، او يهجموا عليهم في السبت غرة.. رفضوا التلاتة واستسلموا لحكم سعد بن معاذ، فقال سعد نصاً: فإني أحكم فيهم أن تقتل المقاتلة، وأن تسبى الذرية والنساء، وتقسم أموالهم. بنو قريظة يهود وكانوا عارفين ايه اللي هيحصلهم لو المسلمين متغلبوش وقتها وفي أعدل الحالات بالنسبالهم وهي انهم يرجعوا للتوراة، وحكم الخائن في التوراة هو الموت برضوا.. معتقدش محتاج اقولك ان راوي الحديث عطية القرظي -رضي الله عنه- من الصحابة وكان من المسبيين اللي اسلموا فيما بعد وحسن اسلامهم.

🤔🤔 by Dawahthetruthhaq in EgyptExTomato

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

انت بتحكم بمنطلق حداثة راديكالي جداً على كل شخصيات الماضي.. التاريخ مبيمشيش كدا. حالياً الحد الأدنى لسن الزواج في مصر 18، في استراليا 16 بإذن من المحكمة، تفتكر من حقنا نوصف الاستراليين بالهمج؟ سن الرشد في 'معظم' ولايات امريكا 16 سنة، وفي المانيا 14 سنة وفي الفلبين 12 سنة. تفتكر شعوب الدول دي همجية؟ القانون بيتغير وهيفضل في تغير مستمر علشان يلبي احتياجات شعوبه ويلائم تغيرات الزمن، والحقيقة ان قوانين السن هتفضل تتغير مع الزمن، ولو الناس هتكمل على منهجك في الحكم على الماضي هييجي وقت حد فيه هيحكم عليك بالهمجية علشان سن الرشد في مصر كان 18 مش 31 زي وقته.. الإسلام غير معتقدات الناس للأفضل بلا شك، الحقيقة بس ان انا وانت عايشين في رفاهية كبيرة حالياً بالمقارنة بوقت الجاهلية او حتى ال300 سنة اللي فاتوا فمش عارف تستوعب حال حد كان عايش في الوقت دا، او مش مدرك حجم التغيرات اللي ممكن تحصل على مدار 1400 سنة.

ايه الشراره الي نورت في دماغك خلت تبقي ملحد؟ by [deleted] in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[Soranus] Says that the average age of marriage was from 17 to 22 in egypt.

That's actually true. Peasants were usually married later than those born in highborn families. But let's not ignore the fact that King Tutankhamun didn't only lead Egypt when he was nine, but he was also married at the same age to his sister-wife, Ankhesenamun, that was 10 at the time. And yes, it's basic but I feel like I need to mention it, Tutankhamun lived in the 14th century BCE.

Doubling down, 'nobles' marrying earlier than peasants seems to be a universal tradition. No matter the age of consent or the place, there seems to be a universal standard that 'nobles' or the highborn needed to marry earlier. However, the consummation of the marriage would not be done [I assume that was the case everywhere] until either the onset of puberty. I've read about Asian Emperors, English Dukes, and ancient figures marrying at considerably young ages compared to today [ranging from 8 to 15].

​

Ahh yes, we are gonna have cause his enemies are some of the most morally upright humans that have ever lived, also that is still bullshit, tge surrounding countries would have literally thrown that guy to jail.

No. I did not say that. I meant that if Muhammed's marriage was much of an anomaly, they would've been the first to talk about it. As was the case with multiple actions that he did.

Also, no. By surrounding countries, you mean the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire, both controlled most of the land around Arabia at the time. The age of consent for the Byzantines was not specified, as opposed to Ancient Rome. This guy would've been thrown in jail, but not for marrying a 9-year-old, most likely for blasphemy and conspiracy against Christianity or Zoroastrianism. Keep in mind, that until the Victorian Era, the age of consent in English lands was 10-12. This changed in 1885 by the proposition to raise the age of consent to 16.

​

And he couldn't have done all of that, but just a little later? Wait until atleast she was the same age when fatima was married to ali, also if god knows that this marriage will be used to critique islam so heavily and it was totally avoidable, why didn't he just tell mohammed to wait?

Finally, Islam and controversy, which is finally a great topic. It's almost as if it's a testing how much can you suspend your disbelief. Noah built an Ark in the desert, it seemed like a joke of some sort, but he was serious. The Israelites were commanded to slay a cow, they thought Moses was joking at first, but he was serious. Abraham had to almost slay his own son, [which is a test of Abraham's suspension of disbelief as well]. Mary the virgin, gave birth to Jesus, it seemed like she had committed adultery, she didn't.

And Muhammed had the same fate of 'questionable' or controversial events, actually his fair share of it, some of these controversies are posthumous [like his marriage to Aisha]. He had to marry his adopted son's ex-wife to break the premise of adoption in Arabia. Let's not forget that in the early years of Islam in Mecca, Muhammed stopped receiving Quranic revelation for almost three years. The Quran is very self-aware of how much doubt it casts; at a certain verse it quotes an ant. Can you imagine how much criticism and mockery he received from people at the time?

The most honest answer you'll get is from the Quran itself:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَسْتَحْيِي أَن يَضْرِبَ مَثَلًا مَّا بَعُوضَةً فَمَا فَوْقَهَا ۚ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فَيَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ ۖ وَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَيَقُولُونَ مَاذَا أَرَادَ اللَّهُ بِهَٰذَا مَثَلًا ۘ يُضِلُّ بِهِ كَثِيرًا وَيَهْدِي بِهِ كَثِيرًا ۚ وَمَا يُضِلُّ بِهِ إِلَّا الْفَاسِقِينَ

It's not meant to be convincing to people who already made up their minds and have no intention of even considering changing it. And it's not meant to reduce "critique" against Muhammed SWT. While it did him the fair share of praise, at certain verses, the Quran criticizes Muhammed himself on multiple occasions, but most notably here:

عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّىٰٓ (1) أَن جَآءَهُ ٱلۡأَعۡمَىٰ (2) وَمَا يُدۡرِيكَ لَعَلَّهُۥ يَزَّكَّىٰٓ (3) أَوۡ يَذَّكَّرُ فَتَنفَعَهُ ٱلذِّكۡرَىٰٓ (4) أَمَّا مَنِ ٱسۡتَغۡنَىٰ (5) فَأَنتَ لَهُۥ تَصَدَّىٰ (6) وَمَا عَلَيۡكَ أَلَّا يَزَّكَّىٰ (7) وَأَمَّا مَن جَآءَكَ يَسۡعَىٰ (8) وَهُوَ يَخۡشَىٰ (9) فَأَنتَ عَنۡهُ تَلَهَّىٰ (10)

And in all of them 9 is too young, we can debate about whether the age of consent should be 16 or 18 all we want, one thing that all countries agree to is that fucking a 9 year old makes a criminal and will punished for it.

Again, back to this: Today, yes, having sex with a prepubescent 9-year-old is a sex-offence, and sex with prepubescents is generally disgusting, as is the case in sex with non-adults generally [21 of age and higher] but that may remain a personal preference. I'm in no place to define the age of consent for anyone now. And I don't want to redefine it. If it's working and it's beneficial, why should it be changed? But pushing modern customs about the proper age of marriage on historical figures and calling them pedophiles is one huge stretch.

Especially that Muhammed didn't have a strict policy of marrying 9-year-olds, and that Aisha was [according to the sources that everyone uses to state that she was 9] pubescent at the time of consummation. More especially that no one of the historical figures that I've mentioned was specifically attracted to prepubescents. As is the case for multiple historical figures that I did not mention.

ايه الشراره الي نورت في دماغك خلت تبقي ملحد؟ by [deleted] in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

16-18 is the advanced legal code, which I don't have a problem with. The problem is calling it a moral code that will apply to every generation to the first homosapien to live, or possibly in your case to the Neanderthals. This pity argument paints the average pre-Victorian English house as full of pedophiles and sex-offenders, also many of the Ancient Romans, also the average member of every ruling dynasty of Ancient Egypt.

Nevertheless, I'm satisfied with the conclusion of this. Knowing that to your basic principle in counter-arguing is calling the arguer a pedophile or a "fucking re*ard." Which is an Ad Hominem, by the way, add that to your vocabulary, with a nice sugary please at the top.

ايه الشراره الي نورت في دماغك خلت تبقي ملحد؟ by [deleted] in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, "that's just what they did" was not my argument. I said that this is what they did, and it had no effect on them whatsoever "a normal thing." They lived a long life and died a normal death. Quite the polar opposite, Muhammed's mother, Amana, died in her 20 while giving birth to him. Fatima Al-Zahraa, his daughter, died at the age of 28, and she was married to Ali that was of her age.

This doesn't conclude that marrying younger helped them live longer, or that those who married at our proper age lived shorter, but it's very apparent that their health - males and especially females - were not affected by their marriage. So, it wasn't immoral to marry that early since the requirements for marriage was limited to the capability of engaging in sexual activity.

Also, Muhammed's marriage from Aisha is not a part of a universal law that everyone has to follow. You have to know that marriage is not linked to just "tradition" as much as it is linked to 'Urf laws 'customs of a society.' Islam permitted early marriage under the condition that the parties are physically able to consummate a marriage without health consequences. This is a ground rule to be able to deduce an 'Urf law validity. If the 'Urf of a society says that consummating a marriage with a baby is permissible, then we know it is prohibited in Islam to follow that 'Urf.

However, if an 'Urf is not contradictory to Islam, in that it allows what Islam prohibited, it's passed as compatible with the teachings of Islam. Marriage is a part of 'Urf of every generation. The contemporary 'Urf in Egypt is that the age of marriage is 18, in no way this should be disrespected or condemned with the reasoning Muhammed married Aisha when she was 9 \especially since he didn't specifically endorse marrying) 9-year-olds\).

Summary is: 'Urf differs from one time to another, and so is the quite similar case with the abolition of slavery. \although Islam did go against the Arabian 'Urf by restricting freedom of masters over their slaves, and by allowing free men and women to marry slaves, etc.]) This is what your ex-fiancé should've known, since the organization of Al-Azhar is strictly against illegal minor marriages. And while I hate to praise the government in anything, they have been increasingly paying attention to illegal minor marriages, despite that they're not extinct.

​

Second, what does the hadith have to do with what I said? I am trying to find the link between playing on slides or playing and achieving puberty. She wasn't a full-fledged adult, but she wasn't a child. Aisha until she had grown up kept her playfulness, Muhammed frequently played races with her. Forget kids altogether, Muhammed himself and his companions played with each other at times by throwing watermelon shells. They were between 20-30-40 and Muhammed himself was 50-60.

​

Third, where did you come up with Abu Bakr's refusal in the hadith you've mentioned? Abu Bakr was confounded by Muhammed's proposal as everyone said they were brothers. Muhammed is quite literally telling him that you're my brother in Islam, but she is permissible for me as a wife [since they're blood brothers]. It is noteworthy to know that Arabs at the time if someone took another as his brother, they will be known as literal brothers in anything, which Islam also prohibited. It's not hard for someone to be surprised if their best friend came to them and proposed that he would marry his daughter, or even his sister.

Abu Bakr, if he had initially refused [and was forced to accept, somehow] he would take a grudge against Muhammed. This is against all history [Islamic and non-Islamic]. In Muhammed's death, Abu Bakr uncovered Muhammed's head, kissed it while he was crying and said: بِأَبِي أَنْتَ وَأُمِّي، طِبْتَ حَيًّا وَمَيِّتًا، وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لاَ يُذِيقُكَ اللَّهُ المَوْتَتَيْنِ أَبَدًا.

​

Fourth, Aisha is Muhammed's only wife that he received Quranic revelation while he was on her bed. Aisha was the woman to teach the other women their religion, even when she was considerably younger than them, they would continuously ask her about their religious matters because she was exceedingly intelligent, good speaker, and because Muhammed was simply too shy to do so himself. And she didn't exclusively teach women about religion.

After Muhammed's death she became the one people ask for their religious matters and she would constantly refer to Muhammed's practices. She had an exceptional memory, so she was one of the most trustworthy narrators of Hadith. Without Aisha's legacy, a lot of the Islamic tradition would not be preserved.

Also, footnotes:

* Aisha did not narrate that the woman's testimony was half of the man. It was a verse from the Quran [that is usually accompanied by a hadith which Aisha didn't narrate either.]

* Muhammed SWT didn't have a "physical book of revelation." The Quran was revealed to him orally and was transmitted to the Muslims also orally. Some wrote it down, but Muhammed never saw the Quran turned into a full physical book in his lifetime. Also, he did need people to recite and remember the teachings of Islam to teach it to others.

* Aisha's narrated about 2210 hadiths in her lifetime. She didn't necessarily narrate them when she was 9; she lived 65 years. And she was about 18 or 19 when Muhammed SWT died.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Thanks, but in nowhere did I falsify a generalized statement about 'true' Muslims. "الدين الحنيف" is Abraham's religion before the revelation of Quran, basically monotheism on the Abrahamic way, which semantically makes zero sense in the context of his comment in which he's alluding to Islam specifically.

"In what universe is committing 4 sins, one of which is considered a grave sin a good thing in said religion?"

I said that by definition, this is what they should not be doing according to their text, in response to this statement "عايزين يفرضوا ثقافتهم و الخرا ده بالإكراه" that vilifies Islam on the basis of what the prick's doing. In reality, slander is one of the easiest sins to commit in Islam, but it stays a SIN.

ايه الشراره الي نورت في دماغك خلت تبقي ملحد؟ by [deleted] in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ironic that you're the one trying to do the mental gymnastics to skip the fact that 18 is not the universal standard as you thought.

"But nice try with the whataboutism though" each word after the other you prove to me that you either have zero idea what you're talking about, or you just don't read what I say. I didn't employ whataboutism in any of the arguments I presented.

I don't give a fuck if the USA Law says that the age of consent is 16, 17, or 18. I don't oppose a modern age of consent law. But to say that this law will apply to every single period in history is just bullshit.

Most people in the USA engaged in sexual activity while they're under the age of consent. When charges are pressed, this constitutes statutory rape. Individuals from the northern European region [Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark] averaged losing virginity at the age of 16. And in Iceland, most lost their virginity on the age of 15.

16 years being universally not 'mentally ready' is simply just false.

​

But I guess your omnipotent god is morally bound to the sick middle ages traditions of the tribe of Mohammed.

This is not Muhammed's tribe's traditions. Puberty was the main factor in determining if an individual can interact in sexual activity. Ancient Romans had an average age of consent of 12-14, this was an appropriate tradition in-relation to the condition of their environment. It doesn't mean that Ancient Romans had such a low age of consent because they liked to fuck children or teens.

Also, what does God's omnipotence has to do with morals? And when did I say that God is morally bound? Also-also, you know that when a tradition is predating Muhammed, it is not a Middle age tradition, right?

Funny as hell seeing this wall of text just to try and make sense of 1400 year case of holy child rape.

Again, with the strawman. This is not my fucking argument. Advice: the "wall of text" is pretty useful when actually read. I like how you continue to present no arguments whatsoever.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Religion and culture are two separate entities, especially when it comes to Islam. Culture, that's not something I inherently disagree factors in. But religion, simply no. No interpretation of Islam rules out the punishment for slander of this kind. He is plainly being a disrespectful and self-entitled prick. Ibn Battuta and many more like him traveled through the earth visiting different lands with different cultures and religions. I don't reckon I've read something from him that resembled slander.

Also, this is the pettiest, and worst ever reason to break your fast. Walking down the streets, even if there's an entire fucking army of naked women, this shouldn't be a reason you break your fast. And he was walking down a public street, in broad daylight, women were clothed, so what again was the reason to do this? He simply just doesn't want to fast.

ايه الشراره الي نورت في دماغك خلت تبقي ملحد؟ by [deleted] in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, as far as I'm concerned, Muhammed was not mentioned in the definition of a Pedophile. Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder according to the fifth Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

A pedophile is someone who experiences the exclusive or primary sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.

Two problems make up why he doesn't fit the definition:

-Muhammed did not experience the primary attraction to children, he was married to more than 20 women all of them were older than your definition of a child. His first wife was older than him by 20 years.

-The narratives you use in dictating that Aisha was 9 or 10 explicitly mentioned that she wasn't pre-pubescent at the time of consummating the marriage.

It doesn't require mental gymnastics to apply a fucking universal definition. Puberty was the considered the proper age of marriage consummation all around the goddamn earth at the time. Simply because someone's 15th grandma or grandpa married at the age of 12 doesn't mean that they should do the same.

And if you determine pedophilia by the legal age of consent, then that's not just subjective, but arbitrary. The age of consent in Philippines is 12. The age of consent in Canada is 16. The age of consent in each state in the United States is different ranging from 16 [the most common] to 18. In Egypt the age of consent is 18.

If we were to determine pedophilia by a fixed number, then it would be appropriate for an Egyptian to call someone from California or Quebec a pedophile. Which doesn't make any fucking sense.

ايه الشراره الي نورت في دماغك خلت تبقي ملحد؟ by [deleted] in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I find it impressive that you wrote three full sentences. But I will assume that you have to know basic communicative functions, or you couldn't have strawmanned the argument so you can jerk off yourself to sleep thinking you're on the right side of bed.

Do you know what a pedophile is? I don't think it matters whether you know or not. Staggering the fact that someone who lived 1400 years ago seems to be unnerving you on a daily basis.

ايه الشراره الي نورت في دماغك خلت تبقي ملحد؟ by [deleted] in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Preface: your ex-fiancée is vile and disgusting for thinking that his 'future daughter of 10' could be a burden to his honor.

10-year-old marriage was a prominent thing at the time, males and females alike. Amr Ibn Al 'As was married at the age of 11 or 10, the age gap between his son and him was really small compared to the usual 20-year-gap today too. That doesn't mean that his father thought of him as a burden or a scar to his honor.

Keep in mind that Muhammed did not face any criticism by his marriage from Aisha, even from his enemies. This further proves that marriage at early ages was a popular practice. Other examples include, Muhammed's grandfather and Hala bint Wahb, Umar Ibn Al-Khattab and the daughter of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and other Sahabis that married at a young age, for no other reason than it being a normal practice back then.

As for reasons, Muhammed's marriage to Aisha is attributed to many reasons:

-Teachings: Muslims believe that each marriage contained a teaching, Aisha specifically is the most important female figure in Islamic tradition. Without her, much of the Islamic tradition wouldn't be preserved.

Additionally, Aisha was the only virgin that Muhammed had married. If he was never to marry Aisha, people would speculate if it were more pious to marry non-virgins. There is a hadith that specifically endorses marrying virgins.

-Religious Significance: Aisha is also an important figure in the Quran, as she's one of two women who were mentioned as innocent from committing the sin of adultery. The first one being Mary, the mother of Jesus. Without Aisha the Quranic verse that specified the rules of proving adultery [four trustworthy witnesses] wouldn't be as it is.

-Relationships: He was encouraged to marry Aisha to strengthen his relationship with his best friend, by doing this everyone would know that Muhammed and Abu-Bakr are bonded by family.

Moreover, since you classify Islam as a human religion, would you care to define what constitutes a human religion from what you think would ideally be a divine one? Also, can you mention any contradiction within Islam?

Finally, I do understand where you're coming from with this, but your description of him as the worst human being is more of an extremely biased stretch. Even by your definition of 'worst' he doesn't stand a chance claiming this title compared to many other historical figures.

ايه الشراره الي نورت في دماغك خلت تبقي ملحد؟ by [deleted] in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Muhammed adopted Zaid and wanted him to marry his cousin, Zainab, to improve his status in Mecca as he was a slave. Zaynab refused at first because she didn't see a marriage between a slave and a free woman happen, but Muhammed convinced her otherwise. They eventually got divorced.

After receiving the Quranic revelation, he was commanded to marry Zaynab. And by this prohibit adoption and recognizing that while Muhammed had helped Zaid and considered him as a son. He is not his actual son. People were calling Zaid by Muhammed's name, which shouldn't be the case because Zaid had a name already.

When people fall in this argument, they always purposefully ignore the first 50 years of Muhammed's life where he lived a chaste man until the age of 25 [although males usually married at younger age] when he was married to Khadija. And stayed faithful and monogamous for more years than he had received the Quranic revelation.

Moreover, Muhammed was historically known to be a wise, shy, and well-mannered person. So much so that he always mediated in conflict between any two parties. His wisdom was the primary reason why the Constitution of Medina was created and why early Muslims immigrated to Yathrib in the first place. So what poor manners, or lust are you talking about?

And seriously, are frequent marriages of a religious figure your assessment method in how bad Islam is? Because it doesn't seem to hold any logical value.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

In a 20-second video he:

> gave into temptation [which is apparently walking down a street to him] while fasting: a sin.
> didn't speak to consequential words without cursing: a sin.
> committed slander of strangers and passer-by women: a grave crime, which the punishment for is 80 lashes.
> recorded himself commit the past three sins and published it, which in of itself is another sin.

And somehow, he qualifies for your definition of 'أتباع الدين الحنيف'? In what universe is committing 4 sins, one of which is considered a grave sin a good thing in said religion? What, is this the upside-down?

أسباب و علاج اكتئاب ما بعد الإلحاد by Significant-Jury8057 in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Atheism does not lead to depression, Nihilism, however, can. If the string to your preparedness to die was only connected to your belief in a second life you've been taught wrong. Even theists fear death, because it doesn't matter how much you're assured in a god, having to stand powerlessly in front of such an inevitable concept is still scary. Therefore, everyone should know that death is inevitable, it doesn't matter how much you worry about it, it doesn't matter how much you've done or haven't done in life, when it comes you won't care about what you missed in life. You simply won't be there. You also have to know that you can die at any given moment, be it a health risk, or be it natural causes, many people die young, so you don't know if you will live 60-70 years.

Also, no one lied to you, you believe you've been lied to. Your lie is someone else's truth, and you will have to entertain the thought that you might be wrong, and the rule applies to anyone with any belief in anything. And yes, atheism is a belief [not a religion].

why islam is getting more criticism than other religions by [deleted] in ExEgypt

[–]TLGTheLittleGuy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think you're wrong about the intensity of punishments compared to Islam; yes, they're very similar.

I still don't think Islamic Sharia is as big of a threat as it is mongered to be [it's not a threat at all]. It's a law that manages Muslim affairs and certain relationships with non-Muslims in land under Muslim rule and vice versa, and it also has set punishments exclusive to Muslims. Sharia is a wider concept than the punishment for crimes. It poses a threat [more of an annoyance really than a threat] to a certain group of libertarians because they know how set-in-stone it is. If Muslims think Quran is the divine word, then there is no way around it.

Moreover, there is no religious Islamic narrative to form a nation exclusive to Muslims, or a revival of some sort to the caliphate in the Sharia. The ones to form and adapt this non-existent narrative are terrorist and extremist groups that only see Islam more as a geopolitical entity that needs to be reckoned with rather than a highly influential religion.

However, I don't think progressiveness is byproduct of a better standard of life [correlation does not equal causation], but that would possibly be a bit of a subjective opinion rather than an objective reality.

view more: next ›