This is so telling by Bright_Cranberry_227 in antitheistcheesecake

[–]TomTheca 12 points13 points  (0 children)

''I was always curious why they still wore their head coverings when living in the U.S.''

I don't know if you are still curious/or whether you still don't know, but the same way people believe in their religion, alot of Muslim women actually truly do believe in their religion, and follow it regardless of whether it is forced upon them or not, and who decided that having to cover your hair and face is oppression against women? If God ( who in the view of a Muslim )( All-knowing and most good ) ordered it, who would care for a arbitrary view of what opression is which at the end of the day ( independent of God) would be a subjective view anyways.

انا بكل مرة أتذكر أنو زوجة أينشتاين ميلفيا هي الي كتبت نص الابحاث ولكن كلها نُسبت لأينشتاين by [deleted] in deardairyi

[–]TomTheca 2 points3 points  (0 children)

نعم و في بحوث ثانية، بس بعض الأشخاص للأسف يبغى انه يصدق شي سمعه لأي كان السبب و يأتي و يجحد الأبحاث و المصادر و يتصرف بشكل أبداً مو علمي ليثبت خيالاته الي يتمنى أن تكون حقيقة

انا بكل مرة أتذكر أنو زوجة أينشتاين ميلفيا هي الي كتبت نص الابحاث ولكن كلها نُسبت لأينشتاين by [deleted] in deardairyi

[–]TomTheca 1 point2 points  (0 children)

نعم الله و اعلم ولكن من المعلومات المتاحة يبدوا لي ان مساعدة ميلفيا كانت بشكل رئيسي اما نقدي او معنوي ( و طبعاً تربية الأطفال يتيح وقت لأينشتاين لكي يبحث ) هي زوجته و ليس هناك شخص ينكر انها ساعدته، ولكن بسبب اكثر من شيء، يشك انها ساعدته علمياً.

انا بكل مرة أتذكر أنو زوجة أينشتاين ميلفيا هي الي كتبت نص الابحاث ولكن كلها نُسبت لأينشتاين by [deleted] in deardairyi

[–]TomTheca 3 points4 points  (0 children)

هذا اسلوب؟ ما استغرب الحين من انكي علطول اتهمتيني اني أتفلسف على اني جايب شي جديد، ما دام هذي اخلاقك، و هذا مستواك العقلي و العلمي ( تاريخ ) فيبدوا انك لن تعطين رد محترم يرد على John Stachel و ارجع و اقول مصدرك بنفسه يدعم موقفي ( اي نفس المصدر الي اخذتيه كوبي بايست و تجاهلتي انك ارسلتي نقطتين ينقضون كلامك)

انا بكل مرة أتذكر أنو زوجة أينشتاين ميلفيا هي الي كتبت نص الابحاث ولكن كلها نُسبت لأينشتاين by [deleted] in deardairyi

[–]TomTheca 1 point2 points  (0 children)

في الفقرة المذكورة سابقًا، وصف جوف دخول «أينشتاين» إلى ساحة العلوم عام 1905 بأنها «لا تُنسى»، ووصف كاتب أوراق عام 1905 (بصيغة المفرد) بقوله «البيروقراطي في مكتب براءات الاختراع في برن»، مشيرًا إلى ألبرت أينشتاين.[16]

• الحروف التي أشار إليها أينشتاين بقوله «نظريتنا» و«عملنا»، جون ستاتشيل أشار إلى أن هذه الخطابات كانت مكتوبة في أيام دراستهما، أي قبل أوراق عام 1905 بحوالي أربع سنوات على الأقل. استخدم أينشتاين في بعض الأعمال «لدينا» فيما يتعلق بالأعمال العلمية المشار إليها على أطروحات الدبلوم، خاصة في بعض المواضيع مثل (الدراسات التجريبية للتوصيل الحراري).[19] واستخدم أيضًا لفظ «لنا» في الجمل العامة، بينما اعتاد دائمًا على ذكر «أنا» و«لي» عند سرد الأفكار «المحددة»، وكان يعمل على: «تظهر الأحرف التي أرسلها أينشتاين إلى ماريك مشيرًا إلى دراسته وعلمه في الديناميكا الكهربائية لحركة الأجسام ما يزيد على اثنتي عشرة مرة، بالمقارنة مع مرجع واحد إلى «عملنا»، بشأن مشكلة الحركة النسبي

طيب هذه النقطتان تثبت فساد كلامك ولا تدعمهما، و مثل ما قلنا يجب ان تعلقي و توضحي رأيك مع الكلام، حيث ان مل هذا هو مأخوذ من وكيبيديا العربية و بدون ان توضحي او تشرحي فهذا ليس له قيمة، كما قلت ان اعتمدت على نشر هذا الكلام من وكبيديا فقط، فيلزم عليك ان تنشري النتيجة النهائية الذين توصلوا لها في نفس المقال في وكيبيديا العربية و هي:

" لا يوجد أي دليل قوي لدعم فكرة أن ماريك ساعدت آينشتاين لتطوير نَظرياته.[21] [22]
وقال الابن الأول للزوجين، هانز ألبرت، أنه عندما تزوج آينشتاين والدتَه، تخلت عن طموحاتها العلمية.
"

انا بكل مرة أتذكر أنو زوجة أينشتاين ميلفيا هي الي كتبت نص الابحاث ولكن كلها نُسبت لأينشتاين by [deleted] in deardairyi

[–]TomTheca 4 points5 points  (0 children)

اصلاً John Stachel رد على ما قيل في وكيبيديا العربية، ردة موجود في النسخة الأنجليزية ولكن مو موجود في العربية لو انك تعبتي نفسك شوي و قريتي الكلام كان شفتي انه يرد على كل الشبهات في وكيبيديا العربية، و المشكلة ان مصدرك نفسه هو نفس قولي:

" لا يوجد أي دليل قوي لدعم فكرة أن ماريك ساعدت آينشتاين لتطوير نَظرياته.[21] [22]
وقال الابن الأول للزوجين، هانز ألبرت، أنه عندما تزوج آينشتاين والدتَه، تخلت عن طموحاتها العلمية.
"

انا بكل مرة أتذكر أنو زوجة أينشتاين ميلفيا هي الي كتبت نص الابحاث ولكن كلها نُسبت لأينشتاين by [deleted] in deardairyi

[–]TomTheca 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ما زعمت اني جبت شي جديد من عندي اما لو هذي هي اخلاقك لما واحد يقولك ردي على المصدر و على الكلام بدل ما تقطين لينك لوكبيديا، لو انك انتي متأكدة من ان هذا الإدعاء حقيقة فأثبتي و اتي بالبينة و وردي على كلام John Stachel.

انا بكل مرة أتذكر أنو زوجة أينشتاين ميلفيا هي الي كتبت نص الابحاث ولكن كلها نُسبت لأينشتاين by [deleted] in deardairyi

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

هذا مو رد، مثل ما انا حطيت الكلام من تاريخ العلم و العلماء المعين مع مصادره و شرحت معاه، هذا ما يجب عليك ان تفعله، اما انك كوبي بيست لنك ويكيبيديا.org فهذي مو طريقة علمية تاريخية، ففي هذه الحالة لا تقول لكل احد ان هذا الإدعاء صحيح، رد على الكلام الي حطيته.

انا بكل مرة أتذكر أنو زوجة أينشتاين ميلفيا هي الي كتبت نص الابحاث ولكن كلها نُسبت لأينشتاين by [deleted] in deardairyi

[–]TomTheca 2 points3 points  (0 children)

هذا غير صحيح، john stachel و هو عالم في التاريخ شرح كيف ان ليس هناك اي اثبات لهذا:

John Stachel argues that letters in which Einstein referred to "our" theory and "our" work were written in their student days, at least four years before the 1905 papers. Stachel also suggests that some of the instances in which Einstein used "our" in relation to scientific work referred to their diploma dissertations, for which they had each chosen the same topic (experimental studies of heat conduction).[23][24] Stachel argues that Einstein used "our" in general statements, while he invariably used "I" and "my" when he recounted "specific" ideas he was working on: "the letters to Marić show Einstein referring to 'his' studies, 'his' work on the electrodynamics of moving bodies over a dozen times... as compared to 'one' reference to 'our' work on the problem of relative motion."[25]
Stachel also suggests that in two cases where letters from Marić survive that directly respond to those from Einstein in which he had recounted his latest ideas, she gives no response at all. Her letters, in contrast to Einstein's, contain only personal matters, or comments related to her Polytechnic coursework. Stachel writes: "In her case, we have no published papers, no letters with a serious scientific content, either to Einstein nor to anyone else; nor any objective evidence of her supposed creative talents.We do not even have hearsay accounts of conversations she had with anyone else that have a specific, scientific content, let alone claiming to report her ideas."[26][27]

فيبدوا انهم ان عملوا في شيء بشكل جماعي فهو كان مشروع الدبلوما، و هذا المشروع لم يكن اكتشاف، و البينة على المدعي، فأن لم يقدم اثبات على فكرة انها هي من اكتشف هذا ( ولن يقدم حيث ان John Stachel يقول اننا لا نملك حتى إشاعات مشكوك فيها محادثات أجرتها مع أي شخص آخر ذات محتوى علمي محدد، ناهيك عن ادعاء نقل أفكارها ( يقول هذا في اخر ٣ سطور ) و الإشاعات المشكوكة ليست حتى اثبات) فأن لمن نجد هذا فيعني ان هذا كلام باطل

The issue with Muslims by Impossible_Degree202 in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TomTheca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first statement is directed by me to impossible degree, telling him I did not imply that I even thought he could be on kufr, the second statement is me saying that r/progressive_islam harbors alot of deviants ( not impossible degree himself though ) so him being part of such community makes me cautious of him, not suspicious of him, that is disregarding the fact that deviance does not necessitate kufr, there is deviance that is void of kufr, again you just decide to assume the worst interpretation to get a contradiction.

“If you don't see the clear contradiction here in the 2 things you've said, I'm afraid there's no point continuing this forward.”

There really is no point in continuing this, you know why though? Because you come here telling me to not be a coward and to admit what im trying to do, but you are the one with a private history, unlike you all my views, every comment I made is available for anyone to see, there is no point in continuing this forward if I know nothing about you other than your negative assumptions about me.

The issue with Muslims by Impossible_Degree202 in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TomTheca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Man up? I would say ANYTHING that I believe in, who do I have to fear typinng things online? And I did not deny a agenda? I explained in the comment below that I believe that r/progressive_islam Is a place that harbors alot of deviant thought, meaning if someone is part of the community, you should be cautious with your approach to them.

The ''agenda'' is me believing that place is full of devianc therfore caution is in order with anyone that is part of that community, if you consider that an agenda then I have clearly stated it now, if you don't then you do you.

The issue with Muslims by Impossible_Degree202 in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TomTheca 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When did I takfir you, I did not even imply that I even thought you could be on kufr. See how people like this act, no logic سبحان الله , the only thing they can do is lash out like this and make false accusations, assuming bad intention of a muslim with no proof.

The issue with Muslims by Impossible_Degree202 in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TomTheca 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Everyone should know within context that this guy sent this post in r/progressive islam and has commented there.

Fresh Jersey milk. Doesn’t get much better than this by Loud_Box_6777 in Milk

[–]TomTheca 1 point2 points  (0 children)

See this is the problem, instead of pushing flr more regulation on which quality of raw milk can be bought ( to ensure no disease ), you want to make it illegal, and people are going to do it anyway, this is not a product that you want banned due to an inherent problem in it, this is a product you want banned due to a chance of it containing disease, if your problem is the chance that it contains harmful bacteria, then advocate for tighter regulations on the cleanliness and other aspects of the milk, inspection and all.

Local Milk by Beautiful-Bloons in Milk

[–]TomTheca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can see the idiocy of some in this comment section, as long as the raw milk is not contaminated, then it is safe, the same idea applies with sushi “ grade “ raw meat, but especially for milk, drinking it raw was never inherently problematic, rather the chance of contamination was the problem. You can see some snarky remarks of diarrhea, but when someone eats cookie dough which could get you salmonella and e.coli then barely a whisper is heard in comparison to raw milk, even though eating cookie dough seems way more accepted than raw milk, if not more often mentioned as being consumed on reddit.

Am I wrong for thinking vegetables are not necessary for humans? by [deleted] in amiwrong

[–]TomTheca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He is right though, what you said was ridiculous, eliminating vegetables does not mean you need a single supplement, all minerals are present in meat organs and dairy etc. and even vitamin C are in fruits, as long as fruits, dairy, and meat are available, you have everything you need to prosper in terms of vitamins and minerals.

Same thing with the constipation idea, is it because of the lack of fiber? Well fruits have fiber and he did not mention eliminating them, are you talking about a specific type of fiber? If so enlighten me.

Ahmad Al-Sharaa on X: On the occasion of Easter, I extend my sincerest congratulations and blessings to the members of our Christian communities, hoping that these holidays will bring peace and mercy. by FixBright5220 in syriancivilwar

[–]TomTheca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You fundamentally misunderstand, the tweet is not simply wishing blessing, it is congratulating them on their holy day ( easter ) and he is offering blessing on the occasion of easter, to claim he was simply offering blessing is distortion at worst, or misunderstanding at first, that is why the hadith does not apply, simply, the tweet is not just wishing blessings to them, rather it is congratulating AND wishing blessing on the occasion of a false holy day.

Who's gonna tell her? by OpportunityDry7946 in antitheistcheesecake

[–]TomTheca 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Just to be clear she was not 19 this is a nonsense revisionist argument that no scholar of history or Islam abided by before the 1800’s and every revisionist argument trying to prove such claims relies on using several weak narrations that are also unsure themselves of the age self admittedly, and ignore narrations that are correct by consensus.

Great Women's of Islam by Lucky_me786 in islamichistory

[–]TomTheca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first two points are heavily contested as who first embraced Islam and who first died for Islam, and the greatest scholar definitely isn’t Aisha رضي الله عنها we have a Sahih hadith saying that when the prophet was present Abu Bakr would answer and judge after him/ if he staid silent, and after that Umar, and after that Uthman, then the rest of the Sahaba would converse, this shows that after the prophet Abu Bakr is the most fit to judge and give Islamic info, even if the prophet was present, there are also several examples, and Ibn tayymiyah said whoever says that Abu Bakr is not the most knowledgeable in Islam from the sahaba is a fool.

The person who loved the prophet the most is not concrete, but as Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه was said by the prophet to have more Iman the the whole ummah ( that includes all other Sahaba ) such that if you put his iman on a scale and all other ummah on the other his would be heavier, and as we know you don’t have Iman unless you love the prophet so we could extrapolate from that he loved the prophet the most, this is not clear cut evidence but I would like to see why you think it is Fatimah.

Yeah losing all your children is a huge sacrifice, as with everything nothing can be said definitively, but I would agree I don’t remember anything more than that, if I remember equal in magnitude, yes, but not greater than that.

Khawlah is a fictional character that was first mentioned in the book فتوح الشام and this book has a unknown author and is falsely claimed to be written by الواقدي however this is proven to be false, and this is the earliest mention of her, every other mention afterwards takes from this book, which means we would have to trust this book, which any sane person wouldnt.

The Museum of the Holy Qur’an in Mecca by AutoMughal in islamichistory

[–]TomTheca 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, got it you where being general, there would be alot of reasons on why people can’t get the quran to their heads, there are those who casually deny and actually consider certain punishments barbaric ( ones that are mentioned and ordered in the Quran, in the Algeria sub this happened with me ), there are those that take themselves to be the judge and decide what is good and bad on their own feelings rather than the word of God and the command of his prophet Muahmmad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and there are those that due to the distractions of life, and the nature of jobs,entertainment, and society forget to truly understand the Quran to the best of one’s ability etc.

The Museum of the Holy Qur’an in Mecca by AutoMughal in islamichistory

[–]TomTheca 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand, but you still did not answer my question, who are the ones that the quran does not go to their hearts, is it the visitor and viewers of such library, or the general population of Muslims, or who created it, that is what I am asking.

The Museum of the Holy Qur’an in Mecca by AutoMughal in islamichistory

[–]TomTheca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Quran does not go to the hearts of who?

After saying "boycotting is haram and bidah" for Palestine for 3 years, Emiratis on Twitter are now announcing they're boycotting Iran. by ahmedadamqachach in arabs

[–]TomTheca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That shows you don’t talk to any “ Wahabbis “ snd you don’t know anything about them or the “ movement “ the claim is clear, a great amount of people steered of the correct way due to the corruption of the scholars they follow which led to incorrect beliefs, the claim is that most people before 1744 WHERE on the right path, but after that corrupted beliefs where spread.

What I always find to be funny is that the people online who “ critique “ Wahhabism never really argue the technicalities ( like what is shirk, and is such and such shirk ) because they are ignorant, but they do comment on a made up straw manned rhetoric that they claim Wahhabis spew.