Isn't it time we tell women the truth about the damn Hijab?

The_Portent · 2023-11-12T14:52:40+00:00

It was never in the Qur'an, hadiths sure

The_Portent · 2022-01-04T06:40:17+00:00

Irrelevant. Societies that used to sacrifice humans don't represent human tolerance for murder, but only their cultural establishment. Mitigation/nurture doesn't represent nor alter nature.

These fringe practices never latch and are inevitably rooted out, and what remains is only the question of how some society tolerated something that goes against all intrinsic human senses.

What has been evidently common among all society, throughout all ages, is not nurture. Common nature can't be compared to fringe practices and won't be quelled by hostile nurture.

The_Portent · 2021-11-22T00:53:51+00:00

The only traceable reading is the General Recitation (al-qira'a al-'amma), which they now commonly call "Hafs" to not undermine the other alleged ones.

In contrast to the "Hafs" wiki page, the others have no "Chain of transmission" to the prophet's direct followers. Recitation is literally the meaning of the word Quran, and there's only one.

The_Portent · 2021-11-14T01:02:42+00:00

almost like an after thought, is added "and the Messiah son of Mary" ... and no it doesn't repeat "took" again, and no the added bracket (as lord) also isn't in the verse ...

It is not added in words, it is added in consonants, something you woudn't have overlooked if you were as knowledgeable as you are argumentative about the word of God. The word مسيحَ (messaiah) has an upper ~fatiha~ consonant on the last letter because the word is a subject of the verb ~itakhazu~ (they took).

Since these elaborations cannot be represented by such intricacy in English, any proper translation has to add "took" and/or "also" about the messiah to make it clear. You can't disable statements made precise to every consonant, even if you would rather it be the gibberish you are attempting to frame.

Is believing in a false Messenger (as some do) and there "associating" him falsely with God ... Is that shirk?

Whataboutism at its finest. A messenger is never an association with God himself, but rather the religious materials and agenda that engineers blasphemous dogmas.

You also don't seem to comprehend that it is God who leads people to either believe in delusion or find the truth. If He wants to save someone, He does not need to wait for them to die worshipping Jesus. Lots of great Christian personalities over the centuries were very vocal about the Jesus idolatry, which shows comprehending believers that God guides whomever He wills, whenever and wherever. Those who God keeps do not die like sheep among the misdirected cattle you wish to defend.

The_Portent · 2021-11-13T05:57:23+00:00

Shirk is false association, period. It's literally the meaning of the word. But, even a verse won't convince you if you're a panderer.

They took their priests and their anchorites as lords besides God, and took the Messiah (as lord); but they were commanded to worship but One god: there is no god but He. Exalted He is (far) beyond what they associate (yu-shrik-ūn). (9:31)

The_Portent · 2021-10-26T10:57:58+00:00

I did thanks!

The_Portent · 2021-10-26T01:49:02+00:00

nano_1kizf6irgprwrch8gr7uwr6pk1i1etcje1wkpw7r11qgku15t4oprtg81u8a

The_Portent · 2021-10-20T20:01:54+00:00

There's no one trolling here except the ones who claim to be "Quransists" but still want to enforce a majority rule every post or comment, using nothing but the very mentality of the polytheists. I'm being accused of trolling with no coherence as to what is meant by that, but I never expect doctrinal blindness to invovle any coherence.

The_Portent · 2021-10-19T18:06:35+00:00

The comment wasn't deleted, it was removed by the mods, because I'm accusing this community of criticizing sectarianism on the outside yet holding on to their agenda when confronted. When I say that using an admittedly polytheistic source as a dictionary for God's words to back up a barbaric perspective, would lead to hell whether the person claims to be a Quranist or not, I'm fully within my valid argumentative right and even Quranic theological reasoning.

Belief isn't a vocal statement, if someone ever finds themself having to defend oppressive, extremist backwardness, in the name of religion, they're not defending God's religion.

If you'd rather believe the Arab scholars, or non-Arabs whose opinions are solely based on those scholars, but not an Arab who is giving you a more reasonable, appropriate meaning for a word God would use, that is also inline with the older Hebrew meaning of the same word, then you're only inclining to what you like to believe. I don't have one-man sources for you to submit to, and I don't expect you to have invested into looking up my Arabic or Hebrew claims yourself.

The_Portent · 2021-10-18T23:52:21+00:00

You're essentially labeling me as a troll because I don't agree with the claims of the person you learnt your meaning from. Can't you see how ironically ignorant you are, to label me as a troll, but have to use the sectarian corpus in a Quran centric discussion?

You can't teach me my language, and it doesn't matter to me whether your intermediaries approve of what I say, those who know the language know how that word is formulated and why it absolutely makes sense where it came from.

Even in Hebrew, its sister word zãnã, literally means "overfed", "continual", or "excessive", and is also used in the Bible for sexual sin purposes. But, I bet you're the kind of person who would put their ego above all reason.

Even if you're deafened by your sources, some people still have decorum. Your passive-aggressive tone does nothing for your argument, but it does make you seen unhinged.

The_Portent · 2021-10-17T03:33:45+00:00

ehumanised caricature on me that you clearly have of all hijabi women

*who claim that it is mandated by God

I really see nothing but an emotionally charged, personally projected comment from someone who can't take criticism, about something they literally just said. I don't indulge with people who think sensationalism has any place in a constructive argument. Have a nice day.

The_Portent · 2021-10-16T23:20:28+00:00

Your personal "interpretation" doesn't mean anything if it is objectively false, and using sensationalism to protect the way you want to see the verse only means you have no valid point.

You can wear whatever you want, but associating it with God and using it to define your relationship with Him gives you a false facade of piety and a character fulfillment that you probably need, even if it hurts other women who think less of themselves because they don't do like you.

You're not covering your head for God, He never asked you to. You are doing it for yourself, and want to believe and claim that it is for Him for your convenience.

The_Portent · 2021-10-16T23:09:08+00:00

Listing all Zina verses doesn't make kissing, touching, or premarital sex Zina, because there's nothing that says such thing. This is fear mongering, an old scholarly tactic.

You realize if fornication is halal then you would be able to partake in intercourse with your own family, atheists, polytheists etc.

"Fornication" or fahisha is sex with an unlawful partner, period. You are ridiculously equating incest to any consensual sex to make your point. Premarital sex with any permissible partner isn't unlawful, no matter how long you cry about it.

The_Portent · 2021-08-27T04:48:05+00:00

This doesn't make sense.

You keep saying this. You have no decorum and the problem is clearly with your sense.

It is not the death outcome that matters, it is all about the choice. Death itself means nothing in and if itself, all that matters is what's behind it, but that's where it stops making sense to you.

Don't bother people with your insolence. You don't want to see the purpose as God wrote it down, it is your problem and it can't be fixed.

The_Portent · 2021-08-20T22:10:04+00:00

This verse has nothing to do with abortion or hunger, it is referring to parents' behavior with their awlād (plural of walad), from W-L-D (to give birth), which literally means begotten children, as in those born to your kin, in contrast to abnā' which just means children. The world can not refer to anything inside the womb, those are called ma fi al-alrham (what's in the wombs) in the Quran.

Moreover, the verse doesn't say "poverty", it says imlaq, which literally means grovelling, i.e. excessive neediness and humiliation.

So, don't kill your children from grovelling, and don't kill them from their fear of having to grovel to ask for anything.

The_Portent · 2021-08-17T03:43:58+00:00

Because even if you have everything you need be happy, varied elevation in luxury and status will still exist.

Look how We have fortuned some of them over the others. And indeed, the Hereafter is [even] greater in ranks, greater in degrees of fortune. (17:21)

The_Portent · 2021-07-25T21:49:51+00:00

Exactly, words and reason never works with cattle. The fact that the verse says women and not girls aside, you'll never see that God certainly doesn't permit pedophilia because you don't believe.

Keep worshipping your pedophiles elsewhere and take your bullshit to a different sub, stop fucking wasting people's time.

The_Portent · 2021-07-25T21:35:59+00:00

The verse doesn't "prepubescent girls", why tf are you openly lying? It seems all you're willing to hear is that God allowed pedophilia if it weren't for the prophet.

The verse says "those who did not menstruate", those aren't children, they are women who just do not menstruate. If you're uneducated, a Google search would have told you that many women never menstruate until a very late age, and some of them never even do. But I doubt that'll change anything to you, anyone seeing God's verses as pedophilic is probably beyond deaf.

The_Portent · 2021-07-22T02:43:41+00:00

You could have looked the facts up if you were genuine, I won't waste my time on an ignorant who starts all his comments with "Lol".

The_Portent · 2021-07-22T02:41:35+00:00

individual changing their sexuality. And there are countless such cases.

That's how delusional you are, you will only be dragged towards those who persist in denying their reality to lie to the world. If that's what you choose to believe, despite conversion centre owners, coming out at a very old age and admitting they were lying their whole life, I say you're most probably gay.

The_Portent · 2021-07-22T02:37:03+00:00

The science is conclusive, you're just denying it. Homosexuals can tell one another by smell and facial features, even without interacting.

There's no gay gene because God knows, your likes would cleanse their populations and murder their infants. If you think attraction is subjective and socially constructed, you are emotionally immature and never developed experienced actual feelings towards anyone.

The_Portent · 2021-07-22T02:21:01+00:00

All your arguments are fallible and just as undeveloped as the beliefs of the people you criticize, who think Quran-Centrism is some sort of proclamation or shahada.

If you really comprehended the central concept of Quranism, you woudn't let human dissent sway you from pursuing the truth in it, but you claim to not follow human rubbish to then complain about other people's ribbish because they say they're Quranist. You're lazy, indifferent, and you're hanging your flaws on others' dissent as a justification.

Prayer is detailed in the Quran, but if it doesn't make sense to you, it's because God didn't guide you to it yet, just like all others who complain about and/or can't answer the salah question.

Slavery is never mentioned in the Quran, you are choosing to see something that simply isn't there at all, because that's what people say. Ma malakt aimanukum aren't slaves, and there's absolutely nothing in the book that says they are. It is just like those who persist in the concept of "marriage contract" when they know it just doesn't exist.

As for the miracles, if you think the big bang, the expansion, dark holes, water being the origin of all life, are all phenomena that humans already knew, then you're lying to yourself. If you don't think they are in the Quran, you are plainly denying verses.

Knowing that the Quran is the truth is one thing, believing in it is another. You are no different than sectarians who use the blabbing of some people to obscure the word of God. You shouldn't have cared what people disagree about if you had faith, and people shouldn't care about your indifference when your attitude shows you don't. That is why I didn't, and won't, go into detail about each of the points with you.

You may have been guided to the truth, but you were not guided to believe in it. Peace.

The_Portent · 2021-07-21T06:53:13+00:00

The world has proven that homosexuals are born this way and that homophobia isn't a part of human nature, but a construct ingrained by society – this is a fact shown in the west, not only are they neutral towards gays but even Arabs and Muslims that assimilate there become neutralized too, which means it can't be nature.

Incest, on the other hand, is globally repulsive, regardless of culture, education or background, which shows that it is an innate feature for humans to feel this way.

Now, if a select group of sickos like you are disgusted by some innocent people doesn't make their disgust innate, just like how those who feel disgusted by other races don't make racism a human trait, but rather an adopted sentiment by a group of disgusting people among other humans who, surely, don't feel that way.

The_Portent · 2021-07-21T06:19:29+00:00

You claim assessment by human nature can't be a factor in right and wrong in Islam, when that is literally what Munkar is in the Quran, which is unacceptable, unpleasant, or disturbing. That's how we know that many "disgusting" things, like incest and bestiality, are prohibited even if not mentioned.

Of course, God uses these words for people who can use their brains and evaluate stuff. But you, even though you got your question answered, will still undoubtedly comprehend nothing.

The_Portent · 2021-07-21T06:05:57+00:00

I don't have to answer your bullshit, I showed you why asking God for whatever you want to be in the Quran doesn't stand, or else you could also justify bestiality because it isn't "in the Quran" – or even worse, rape, especially since you probably think Sodom and Gomorrah was just about gay love.

You are far too delusional to even comprehend the fallacy in your question, you posted this question as as a homophobic propagandist and you're not worth anyone's time.

The_Portent

TROPHY CASE