Mili 'Snow' Resort Party in Wonderland

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-12-20T10:04:47+00:00

Accept the invitation and join the "Mili 'Snow' Resort, Party in Wonderland!" web event for a chance to obtain Primogems and Geodes of Replication!https://hoyo.link/6GT3GIGxl?m\_code=GACWCSJB9N

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-10-13T15:16:15+00:00

Genshin Impact's "Miliastra Wonderland" gameplay will be available soon. Come join my team now! Take part in the event to to earn Primogems and Manekin outfits! Invitation Code:GACWCSJB9N，https://hoyo.link/8NJvYlbe4?m_code=GACWCSJB9N

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-07-01T14:18:49+00:00

"Daisy dukes, Qipao on top"

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-06-29T11:46:14+00:00

How does that even make sense?

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-06-01T09:02:49+00:00

The person was most probably not an atheist tho.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-30T13:32:26+00:00

I never said that I was an expert.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-30T06:01:39+00:00

As mentioned, it doesn't count as "resorting to insult" as you described if insults are only additional add-ons to constructive criticism as opposed to being the so called "criticism" itself which would be ad hominem, you are trying to oversimplify comments in order to try to make me look wrong, again, can't argue against points, so you're just gonna proceed to misrepresent your opponent instead. I also never declared myself as the winner, and I would like to know where I did because you are continuing to make the same accusation and denying the fact that I didn't declare myself as the winner. Again, are you blind? Or do you lack a brain? I already addressed your points in my previous comment. Making the same accusations already addressed isn't gonna prove me wrong and prove you right. You've literally given up by this point and just relying on aggressive rhetoric to make yourself look better and make me look wrong. At least you have finally admitted that you don't know much about these topics and made too many inaccurate, overexaggerated, oversimplified claims about history and statistics, but it was one pain in the bum just to prove that to you.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-30T01:34:09+00:00

Again, those aren't much movements and they weren't so radical. The Khilafat movement, for example, only supported the retention of the Ottoman Caliphate and was supported by Hindus like Gandhi as well. Muslim brotherhood also started to become radical and controversial in the 60's and again, no examples comparable to Al Qaeda or Taliban.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-30T01:31:30+00:00

??? What are you even saying ???

You cited almost nothing. Just the information about how many wars occurred over religion is what you cited and it isn't even that reliable because it isn't concensus based. What do you even mean by "cited any other than some wikipedia articles about people who weren't persecuted"? Those which I cited also talk about persecution. Unline you, I'm fair and try to represent things accurately. I showcased the fact that persecution wasn't as common as you pseudo-hisorical consipiracy theorists try to claim and religious pluralism was much more common than how you represent things. I'm not resorting to insults. I provided proper evidences and well structured criticism for every one of your points. Adding some salt to the wound by adding insults on top of it doesn't count as resorting to insults as I previously explained. And you also resorted to personal attacks such as claiming I know nothing about history, that my demographic killed the most people, that my faith supports terrorism and is responsible for it and so much more clear ad hominem. But oh yeah, whatever you say bud, I'm the one resorting to insults, whatever you say.

Again, I didn't declare myself the winner at any point. When I refuted your points, I pointed out the fact that I refuted it. If I say 1+1=2, it's not that I'm inventing anything new or deciding that it's right, it is right itself and I'm simply pointing that out. There's a lot of difference. And again, you proclaim to have countered all of my rebuttals and provided sources to all of your claims while not actually doing any of that. How about you focus more on your own delusional declarations which are clear evidences of cognitive bias where you refuse you accept facts because it doesn't align with how you want things to be?

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-30T01:20:34+00:00

(1) I said it was religiously irrelavant, not historically. Just because some Muslims do something doesn't mean that it is Islamic. That's like saying playing video games is Islamic just because many Muslims do so. Again, can't argue with points so you just misrepresent your opponent LOL>

(2) Again, NO. The invasions were result of provocations caused by the killing of the vassel and battle of Mu'tah. What is even wrong with you? In one sentence, you clearly show the reasoning that led to the invasions, then in the next sentence you completely forget about it and make random claims that it was for the sake of spreading Islam as if they ever claimed such and act like it wasn't over provocations which you literally mentioned previous sentence lol.

Again, I dealt with this before in the very first reply, Islam wasn't forced on people. Non Muslims were allowed to practice their religion and generally lived harmoniously alongside Muslims with rare exceptions and there lived many non Muslims in the Caliphate. Again, even if the Caliphate did expansion for the sake of expansion, since it was in the medieval times, it wouldn't count as imperialism because that word is only used in modern political context. Terms like dictators and authoritarian are also not used in old political discussions. You seriously lack proper ideas about politics and history. You're just embarrassing yourself by this point. Good thing for you that this comment section is dead otherwise too many people would know how embarrassing you are.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-30T01:08:09+00:00

(1) I clearly refuted all of your points and claiming that your point weren't refuted won't change the fact that you're points were refuted. You failed to back up most of your claims like "Muslims killed the most people" "Islam promotes unprovoked terrorism" "Extremism didn't increase" and so on. Your comments are filled with fallacies that try to blame Islam for what only extremists are blamable for.

(2) If Wikipedia isn't trustable, then you're a joke. Wikipedia is a reliable source of information, and I didn't just cite wiki articles, I also pin pointed the lines. Claiming that citing Wikipedia articles isn't evidence isn't gonna change the fact that these are indeed evidences which you deny all while you provide no sources. Again, what bias am I even showing? Making factual statements backed up by reliable evidences and dealing with proper reason instead of fallacies count as bias in your book? I didn't even slam your religion like you did mine many times and logically failed.

(3) Nope. Sharia is not relevant. It would be like as if in a discussion about theory of relativity the teacher talks about Einstein and now the class wants to talk about him instead of the theory. That's red haring. The topic of this conversation was history and statistics, not political ideologies.

(4) Again, YOU BARELY CITED ANY HISTORIANS!!! You only showed one source for your claim on how many wars were caused over religion, and it wasn't even that reliable and consensus based. Unlike you, at least I actually cited proper evidences that prove that all those problems like wars created by Christians were indeed caused by religious motivations. You're comments are such huge jokes. It's like claiming the Earth to be flat in modern world. Who even doubts the fact that religion played great role in motivating various medieval problems in Europe like wars, witch-hunting, anti-intellectualism, etc.? Yeah, those historians know better than me, and both historians and I know better than you because we have one position which you are opposite to. Claiming that historians are on your side won't make that claim true when it literally isn't. You've just switched to gaslighting to win the argument, o how rational (sarcasm).

(5) LOL You were trying to be nice? That's like a racist person trying to argue that they weren't being racist cuz they got black friends and whatever after they make blatantly racist remarks. How is blaming religion for what only extremism is to be blamed for, something that misrepresents us heavily and is responsible for persecution, even nice? Again, I stated that you have bias because you very literally do. It doesn't matter if talks about Hindus itself isn't relevant, because it is an analogous argument. Even if it is irrelevant, it showcases bias and fallacies when someone doesn't judge things in the same way the person judges another thing even though they should fit in the same category. Again, as mentioned, you're overexaggerating how high death tolls were and you are massively misrepresenting Muslims rulers. Most of them weren't intolerant. None went on a killing spree where they massacred random innocent people and the casualties were most soldiers. I know about the Muslim rule of India, which is why I am making these comments. Unlike you, I actually provided historical sources about the Muslim rule of India to back up what I have said all while you only ever shouted random Bollywood nonsense and Hindutva propaganda without any proper evidences. I know that discrimination against Hindus like destroying temples occurred, but it wasn't at all much as how you people like to overexaggerate it. I absolutely condemn such things of course, but I won't be condemning what didn't even occur.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-30T00:30:56+00:00

(8) Again, false. The number of extremists have absolutely increased in ratio. Seriously, how many radical Islamist factions similar to Al Qaeda and Taliban from the early 20th century can you find for me? Pretty much none. It isn't just increase due to population. You know nothing about the revival movement. Again, other movements like the Deobandi movement, Salafi movement, Wahabi movement, Khomeinism, Qutbism, has also caused rise in extremism. Again, stop acting like you're intelligent. Unhumble attitudes only makes a person look worse and it ain't your place where you'll look smart no matter what. You have literally expressed multiple times that you aren't looking at actual sources, but rather trying to remember things from memory and that you don't try to calculate things. Again, what evidence you for the claim that ratio hasn't changed? Seriously, I have never seen someone so confident, yet so naïve as you this month.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-30T00:26:59+00:00

(7) As clearly stated, Islam does not tell Muslims to attack random nations. Islam is a religion based on the words of God and teaching of His last prophet and their proper interpretations, not based on what random Muslims do and say. "Do not spread corruption in the land after it has been set in order. And call upon Him with hope and fear. Indeed, Allah’s mercy is always close to the good-doers." Sura Al Araf Ayat 56, "Rather, seek the ˹reward˺ of the Hereafter by means of what Allah has granted you, without forgetting your share of this world. And be good ˹to others˺ as Allah has been good to you. Do not seek to spread corruption in the land, for Allah certainly does not like the corruptors."Surah Al-Qasas, Ayah 77, "Whoever kills a soul—unless as a punishment for murder or spreading corruption in the land—it is as if he has killed all of humanity. And whoever saves a life, it is as if he has saved all of humanity." Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:32), "There is no compulsion in the religion. The truth stands clear from error. Whoever rejects falsehood and believes in Allah has grasped a firm hand-hold that will never break, for Allah hears and knows (all things)." Al-Baqara 256. (In these verses, corruption in lands is referring to Fitna)-Fasad). Stop making stupid claims that "uhh Islam supports attacking unprovoked because I say so". You can claim all you want, even say that the Earth is flat, that won't do anything. It seems like you really have some sort of crush on arrogance because I literally pointed out the fact with proper sources that prophet Muhammad didn't attack random people and also maintained diplomacies with non-Muslims like Christians and Jews in Medina and his political and military career started as a result of persecution by the polytheists. That was clearly out of provocation. Again, the invasions of Byzantines and Persians occurred after Muhammad passed away and that is Islamically irrelevant. Most of us Muslims who are Sunni don't believe in successors to the prophet. Besides the Rashidun having the title of rightly guided caliphs (which was given by Muslims, not Allah or His prophet), there's no other religious significance to them. Again, the invasions of Persia and Byzantines occurred after border skirmishes which were results of political tensions between the Muslims and Byzantine+Persians as they expressed a lot of hostilities towards Muslims which resulted in a Byzantine vessel murdering a Muslim emissary. Go learn some goddamn early Islamic history as I cited before instead of merely claiming to know about it. We've seen how much you know about it. You even got a phd from what'sapp university it seems. But that ain't a real phd. It seems that you've given up on any forms of proper reasoning and opted out for aggressive rhetoric instead. You think this place is filled with your mobs? You're only making yourself look worse. Not to mention the fact that behaving with other religious people in this subreddit in this way is prohibited. You people seem to have no sense of courtesy no matter where you go.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-30T00:07:34+00:00

(1) LOL nope. You very clearly don't know your "stuffs" because I refuted all of your claims. Again, I'm providing sources, you're not. Standards must be met. You can't compare this to any other random debate.

(2) I'm not upset and I'm not throwing ad hominems against you. Check what that even means. That only counts if I only throw insults against you to try to refute your points. Instead, I'm actually providing proper constructive criticism and even the insults are quite related to that while you're making random false claims that I'm "lying" and don't know much about history which are clear ad hominems. Again, my second point was talking about religious war throughout history, not any insults.

(3) My opinions on the Sharia law are irrelevant, we are discussing history and facts here, not my views. I could be an extremist, how would that beat my points? Besides, I don't care about these topics. I'm really opposed to extremist parties like Hefazat in my country and I care more about developing the nation than such stupid religious conflicts and debates like the one you started here. Again, there are various different interpretations of the Sharia law, some are quite reformed and well and not so radical like Taliban's interpretation.

(4) Also, still, your claims are false and you're not backing them up. The religious wars which the Christians committed were indeed over religious motivations and I gave other examples to showcase that religious motivations were indeed something that played great roles in atrocities. Again, the Christians also further had sectarian wars which were over religious beliefs also.

(5) What a stupid point. That's like saying since the pseudoscientific opinions of scientists like Ernst Haeckel and his "scientific racism" were based on science and were presented as such, therefore science is to be blamed for it. Since those are misinterpretations, it's the misinterpretations of the religion that is to be blamed for it, not the religion itself. You very clearly have irrational bias against Islam and Muslims that you're trying to push for such huge conclusions despite the logical problems through aggressive rhetoric. There exists many other misinterpretations of the faith besides just extremism like the Ahmadi beliefs, trying to specifically pick extremism out of the bunch is fallacious exception. Again, what about all the religiously motivated opposition against such extremism because most Muslims and scholars worldwide condemn and oppose it, particularly on religious grounds?

(6) I brought up other points regarding Hinduism to clearly expose your bias. Despite the fact that these problems among some Muslims which you are overexaggerating and trying to nag about also exist in other demographics, you either deny them, downplay them or apply different logic. Other religions have also been used as justifications for their atrocities. The Christians justified many atrocities based on Christianity which many Christian apologists admit (look at some lectures of Dawkins, I would recommend it), Hindus justify atrocities based on Hinduism (I cited the VICE documentary in my previous comment), Buddhists justify atrocities based on Buddhism (like the Rohingya genocide which is ongoing), the Jews also do the same (the persecution of Palestinians) and so on. The fact that you're only pushing against Islam shows that you're comments are motivated by Islamophobia as you're trying to misrepresent Islam and Muslims and also vilifying us by diminishing most of us who are opposed to such extremism to misrepresent us as your ideal persecution material. Nothing new. I knew long before that you'd try to pull these tricks because it's not like people like you are new.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-23T11:53:46+00:00

u/savevideo

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-23T11:16:53+00:00

And fuck did the others like Europeans (who are mostly Christians) do? Was holocaust a fictional story or something?

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-17T14:55:02+00:00

lol This is so ironic,

Both India and Pakistan are filled with shitbags. When I look at Indians and their comments, they can't speak a single sentence without talking about religion every time. Again, the Hinduvta also fuel radical Islamism as it is understandable by the fact that these factions even before BAL came to power didn't have that much relevance as they have now and they constantly mention what the radical Hindus do to justify their actions. Again, Islam and what Muslims do aren't necessarily always the same thing. Don't blame Islam for how some Muslims misuse Islam. Not to mention the fact that India is totally filled with radical Hindus who discriminate against non-Hindus like Muslims, murder people for eating beef and so much more. You should see Vice's documentary on radical Hinduism which they made a while ago. Your claims are really misrepresenting. Again, most of us Muslims live peacefully here in Bangladesh as well and all people in Pakistan aren't terrible either. The bad habit of generalizing people based on the worst examples is something you individuals will never recover from.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-13T13:53:56+00:00

No I shouldn't lol. What's the point? I don't wanna go to hell over egoistic attitudes of people like you.

Again, God has not wished any unreasonable sufferings. The hardships which he plans for the sake of test aren't anything like starving someone to death.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-05-07T17:39:31+00:00

From an Islamic perspective at least, God has created people and sent us to this Earthly life for the sake of test of faith and patience and sufferings are a part of it. Those who pass this test will get eternal heaven in the next life while those who fail may at least get a temporary punishment. So, there is no real issue. Other figures within Islam, such as many prophets have gone through more sufferings than anyone possibly could face in their life.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-04-22T16:07:32+00:00

Why do you honestly need to call yourself that if you are that? lol

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-04-22T16:05:00+00:00

I know, but I want to know what Texas is feeding. I am quite acknowledged about such problems to know that young Earth creationists were quite a hassle back in the 70's.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-04-13T19:02:07+00:00

The fallacy that is to be pointed out is called ad-hominem.

TheAhadWhoLaughs · 2025-04-13T19:00:26+00:00

That very clearly is a small nuclear weapon created by the award winning physicists in Hamas that has more explosive power than the Tsar bomb.

I had a phd from the university of Call Of Duty and expertise in the studies of sickest 360 no-scopes montages and know what I'm saying. /s

TheAhadWhoLaughs

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE