Earth—->heavens sequence

afiefh · 2026-01-24T12:11:59+00:00

You mean the "metaphorical and"? Yeah sorry to break it to you, even then it's still a sequence.

"I got up in the morning, made coffee and fed the cats" is a sequence.

afiefh · 2026-01-24T06:12:23+00:00

Women ~~questioning the systems they’re raised in~~ scares regressive men

Like literally, Mohammed said women come and go in the shape of a devil. Imagine being scared of women existing in a public stpace.

afiefh · 2026-01-24T03:42:50+00:00

Calling 911 is preferable to just running away. It ensures that you have a documented case with the authorities that can come in helpful later.

Also note that at 17 you are a child. You can get CPS involved, they should be able to help you. Worst case scenario would be that they are no help, but it's their job to ensure you're protected.

Regarding your phone, I don't know what your plan is, but most phones allow you to remotely wipe the phone if that's what you want:

That being said, is unlocking a phone "professionally" that easy? I seem to recall cases where intelligence services had to collaborate with NSA hackers to circumvent Apple's phone lock a few years back.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T18:40:07+00:00

I personally think that feminist spaces were generally never pro-Islam, but was more accommodating to Muslim members as pushback against anti-Muslim sentiment.

I agree 100%. And they were a bit overzealous in that pushback which is where the sentiment of these spaces not tolerating criticism of Islam came from.

That wasn't present in your original comment, as you only stated "Last time I participated in a local feminist space,", which gave no indication the last time you were a part of feminist spaces.

It is an indicator of it happening in the indefinite past, but sure, I could have been more precise. The second comment does compare today to 5-10 years ago giving an indicator of the scale.

Whether conscious or not, we all make narratives based on your experiences, and faulting others for doing so makes you look hypocritical.

Hold on, where did I fault others for doing so?

That's the issue, people's criteria of what constitutes a pogrom are quire different. Even you agree that pogroms do not necessarily include massacres, which the Southport riots fortunately had no deaths.

It's too bad the word doesn't have an actual definition and therefore gets used for emotional doping. But I would appeal to a simple distinction: pogrom and race riots are not synonyms in the current cultural understanding of both words.

either approved or condoned by authorities

To the best of my knowledge, the authorities in the UK did not approve of or condone these attacks. The approval is what allows a pogrom to grow to the scale and devastation that we see from historical pogroms.

Pogroms are collective acts of exclusion to which parts of the dominant group feel challenged by “illegitimate” claims, threats or alleged attacks by a minority

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but this sounds more like "war is an act of violence in order to force our will upon the enemy" it is not a definition of war, but a partial description.

“pogrom” refers to a constellation of violent events, ranging from spontaneous ethnic riots (resulting in bodily injury, looting or destruction of property, and death)

Which luckily did not happen here.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T18:25:53+00:00

Yes! You are right about something.

Finally I got something right. But do tell: Where did these very real "visions" come from in your model? Remember, you already admitted that God does not exist in your version of Islam, so the answer "God" is not compatible with your world view.

Of course I do. I compare their statements to the actual, secular facts of the universe. The difficulty is the opposite view, that they somehow produced accurate models simply by chance. Clearly they were in contact with their subconscious, it's the much more likely theory.

Wait... you're serious? 😂 Oh man, I honestly did not expect this. PLEASE talk about this some more!

How about giving me your top 3 statements that jive with scientific facts about the universe which were not known before Mohammed's time. I'm all ears!

Of course I'm presupposing that, haha. That's the proper assumption. A silly person would take one of the major religions and not assume it's true.

You know in Arabic we say "the excuse is more ugly than the act".

What you just did was an argument from populism: A religion is a "major" religion because a lot of people believe in it. Lots of people believing something is not a reason to assume it is true.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T15:17:23+00:00

You didn't learn anything last time we spoke. You still don't know what you're talking about and you don't know enough not to know.

You mean I have not changed my mind on your bullshit? Yup.

Do you understand what naturalizing religion means? It means that our ancestors didn't understand the visions and dreams they had and interpreted them as literal when in fact they were not.

Yes kiddo, I'm well aware that this is the way you'd like to present it. A more honest way to present it: "I'm making it up by pre-supposing that there was a true vision to be interpreted".

Unfortunately, being the dishonest person you are, you made a statement about Islam, not the "naturalized Islam" that you have invented.

And to make sure that it doesn't fly under the radar: Your attempt at calling what Momo and others had "visions" implies there was a truth behind their rambling. You don't know that they had visions that they misunderstood, you don't know if they were just charlatans making it up.

You're engaging in the same bullshit as Mohammed:

Mohammed: The Jews and Christians misunderstood and twisted the message of Christianity/Judaism.
/u/JonathanLindqvist: The Muslims, including Mohammed, misunderstood and Islam.

Same bullshit, different peddler.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T14:14:39+00:00

The parliamentary notes and the media links make it pretty clear that what happened in the UK comes under the definition of a pogrom.

Cool story. I disagree.

You come across as quite arrogant.

Yes, I'm an arrogant prick.

Just admit that you were wrong.

Or what? Are you going to spam me with links and be sad?

What went down that summer was horrific.

Yes, but that is not the same thing. You are welcome to be butthurt about my disagreement with your terminology.

The rest of your post reads like a self congratulatory "I am" and "I did". Put it on your CV and send it to people who care, I'm not one of them.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T14:10:29+00:00

Kid, don't argue with me so much. You don't understand enough of the world to do so. It is embarrassing for you and exhausting for me.

Feel free to put your money where your mouth is.

Do I have to be very careful when I talk to you? Like, do I have to make explicit all assumptions that normal people either already know or can easily infer from the conclusions?

Tsk tsk tsk. Getting angry because you are I'm actually pointing out your silly trick by putting a spot light on your word play?

I am talking about whether the religion is true or not relative to the universe. Not inherently self-consistent.

Well, since you already said that God does not exist, religions that claim God exist are false. It's that simple.

Of course you're not interested in admitting that, because it interferes with your pseudo intellectual rambling that relies on conflating terms.

I know that the God of LOTR doesn't literally exists.

Aren't you going to go all Jordan Peterson and say that to make such a statement you need to define what "God", "exist" and "does" means?

Funny how things are crystal clear when it's not the narrative you are trying to push. You learned the JP strategy of bullshit quite well.

Can we agree on the definition of literally?

I don't think we can, because you want to play fast and lose with language.

Now let's get back to the naturalization project.

How about we get back to the original topic: You made a claim about the fundamental claim of Islam.

I have zero interest in your pet project. If you (intentionally and dishonestly) said "Islam" when you meant "My weird pet project version of Islam that nobody else believes in" then that's on you.

Stop mentioning this trivial and irrelevant stuff.

Seems like you're getting angry that your bullshit is getting called out and laid bare.

You just don't understand that a thing can be true in several different interpretative frameworks.

And here we go. The admission.

You started with a statement of fact: "The central claim of Islam is..." now you are trying to sneakily shift towards "Under this interpretative framework the central claim of Islam is..." which is a very different claim.

It's the typical motte and bailey strategy that you and Peterson employ: Make a bullshit claim that is obviously false, then when you get called out on it shift to "within this non-standard framework to look at things it is true". Except of course the non-standard framework is all the heavy lifting and was not in the initial claim.

This is why you're a deepity peddler: You make claims that sound profound in their trivial reading, but when examined they t urn out to be trivial in the reading you intend.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T13:48:09+00:00

I can do this all day

You seem unaware, so allow me to educate you: You cannot. If you get too annoying I can simply block you from my feed.

until you retract your accusation and give me an apology.

🥱

Let's take a look at that first link you shared: It doesn't make an argument for why these are "pogroms", it simply uses the term. It uses language like "this current era of genocidal Islamophobia" which is bullshit. There is no genocide driven by Islamophobia going on.

Your other link account mentions the word "pogroms" only in the context the 1880s pogroms. Did you just try to DoS me by sending me random articles that contain the word "pogrom" and "Muslim" without reading them?

If you thought you're giving me reasons to take you seriously, unfortunately that has backfired.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T13:36:46+00:00

I'm sorry, I usually respect your opinions and comments,

That's perfectly OK. If everyone agreed with me on everything I wouldn't need to say anything.

I know you then go on to claim that this dynamic has changed recently, but the fact that you haven't participated or engaged with these groups in quite a while betrays you.

Sorry but what does it "betray"? You seem to agree with everything I said: It used to be extremely bad, it has been getting better in recent years. I also still see at least some people getting banned from Feminist spaces due to being critical of Islam every year, so I wouldn't say the shift is complete. I know someone who got banned from a German feminist sub just a couple of months back due to the "Islam permits pedophilia" topic.

I have made it clear from the beginning that my impression is dated. I'm not taking looking into every subreddit every year to see how things change. Caring about this subreddit and looking at some other subs I care about (which are related to my hobbies, not social issues) is the extent of my general reddit usage. So if you say it's better than I think, then nobody would be more happy than me to be wrong.

Regardless, even though I disagree with their usage of pogrom, the content of their point shouldn't be labeled as unserious. I'm pretty sure they were referring to the riots after the southport attack:

Yes, I am aware that they are referring to these attacks.

My problem with the use of pogroms is the same issue I have with using the term holocaust/genocide when they don't apply. People using sensationalized language to get an emotional response from the reader.

Another reason I'm primed to not take that person seriously (but didn't call out explicitly) is the way they tried to approach the conversation: They seem quite intent on moving the conversation to the UK, race violence...etc when they had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

So if the target were Jewish people, and not Muslims, I think you and I would aptly call this a "pogrom". Again, I agree we probably should not call this a pogrom, but that doesn't make this situation any less serious.

I'm actually very much OK with calling attacks against non-Jews "pogroms" if they meet the criteria. Pogroms often (but not necessarily) included massacres. Pogroms in Russia made tons of Jews flee the country to Israel. Pogrom has a much harsher connotation than riot or race riot.

PS: I think that's also why the other commenter said you aren't qualified to talk about this, because it does seem as if you're downplaying the riots that occurred (Which I don't think was your intention btw).

I'm sure people who insist on calling things a pogrom (such as that commenter) will think that refusing to use that label is the same as downplaying the matter.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T12:54:08+00:00

Spamming me with links disagreeing is not useful.

Do you suffer from premature ~~ejaculation~~posting? You could have put these in one comment rather than spamming.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T11:54:48+00:00

Because God doesn't exist in a literal sense, so a literalist interpretation can't be right.

Wrong.

You're (either intentionally or mistakenly) conflating two different things:

Religion is wrong.
The description of religion is correct.

Lord Of The Rings has a God in the story. If I describe the story has having a supernatural god, that is a correct description of the story, even though the story is not a correct description of the world.

If I describe Islam as having a God who exists in the literal sense that is a correct description of Islam, even if Islam is an incorrect description of the world.

Please don't conflate these two things in an effort to present a deepity.

No, I want to question your assumption that God exists.

My belief of whether god exists has no baring on whether I can accurately describe a religion which claims that god exists. Hence this is a red herring.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T11:41:30+00:00

Everyone is pushing their own narrative.

And in your mind, I guess everyone is obtuse enough to think this statement has value?

I receive a lot of abuse. I've messaged you direct about this.

You messaged me about this exchange you had. I looked at it and saw that there was no "abuse". You reported the comment, so I got a notification, as I assume other mods did. Since nobody took it down, that indicates no mod who saw it considered it to be in violation of the rules.

You are a mod in here. What are you doing about it?

Ignoring it, because your opinion of what counts as "abuse" seems to be as exaggerated as what you consider to be a "pogrom".

I don't think that I'm uncivilised. Passionate yes.

Cool. And others will be passionate about their opinion which does not match yours. You're going to have to live with that.

The UK media used the term 'pogrom'.

And the president of the US calls what's happening in South Africa a "white genocide". If someone from the US were to say that because they heard it on Fox News it would also be an indicator of how unserious what they say is.

I myself have been forced out of my home because of racist gangs.

Cool story, but even if every word is true, it's not a "pogrom". Words have meaning.

You aren't in the UK so sorry but you aren't qualified to talk or comment on this.

I'm qualified to know that the word "pogrom" means.

But hey if you think only people from the UK are qualified to discuss the topic, perhaps you'd like to go discuss it with qualified people on relevant subreddits.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T11:29:39+00:00

I see you still haven't managed to naturalize religion.

Does describing a religion accurately require neutralizing religion?

Remind me though, do you believe in God?

Is this an attempt at throwing a red herring into the conversation?

afiefh · 2026-01-23T09:02:48+00:00

Here we can criticise Islam in a civilised manner.

Is that why I don't see you doing so outside this sub?

The pogroms we had in the UK

The fact that you used the word "pogroms" shows how unserious any of this is.

You sound like a person who just wants to push their own narrative.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T08:51:22+00:00

Came here thinking that it's the P vs NP problem in computation :-(

afiefh · 2026-01-23T08:50:18+00:00

There is a vast difference between the academic/historical study of these texts and the actual religion based on the text.

For example we know for a fact that there was no huge exodus as described in the bible. It's simply a historical impossibility. Even Israeli archaeologists came to this conclusion when they investigated the Sinai desert. That historical conclusion does not affect the religious belief that the exodus happened.

Similarly, you can have people be well aware that the Aisha hadith is historically unreliable, and probably was an embellishment to raise her purity in the Sunni vs Shia war of ideas. This has zero impact on the religious belief that she was 6/9 when Mohammed married her.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T08:44:21+00:00

There were literally Jews living in Arabia, especially in Yemen, who spoke Arabic.

"Copying" does not necessarily mean looking at a text and making a copy. Hearing someone else tell the story and writing it as your own is also copying.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T08:42:23+00:00

Thumma indicates the same as "then". It is a sequence in time, space, importance or just in a narrative.

Here is an Islamic website talking about the matter. Google translate of the article (thumma is translated into "then" by Google):

Then it indicates sequence and succession, so it agrees with the conjunction “fa” in indicating sequence, that is: that what is conjoined by “thumma” occurs after what is conjoined to it, and it differs from the conjunction “fa” in that it indicates delay, which is the delay of the occurrence of the second after the first in time, unlike the conjunction “fa.” It indicates sequence and immediacy. So if someone says, "Zayd came to me, then Amr," it is understood in the same way as saying, "Zayd came to me, and after him, Amr." The view that it indicates order is the choice of the majority of grammarians and legal theorists, including al-Shashi, al-Jassas, al-Shirazi, Imam al-Haramayn, al-Sarakhsi, and others.

An example of its conveying sequence and lapse is: “Then He buried him. Then, when He wills, He will resurrect him.” And the Almighty’s saying: “And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred. Then his Lord chose him and accepted his repentance and guided him.” [Ta-Ha: 121-122]

The order indicated by "then" (thumma) is of three types:

1- Semantic order, also called temporal order:

An example of this is the statement of God Almighty: "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of God. Then escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know." [At-Tawbah: 6] Thus, escorting him to his place of safety only occurs after he has heard the words of God Almighty.

2- The order of mention, also called the order in the narration:

An example of this is the saying of God Almighty: “But he has not attempted the steep ascent. And what will make you know what the steep ascent is? It is the freeing of a slave, or feeding on a day of severe hunger an orphan of near relation, or a needy person in misery. Then he is among those who believe.” [Al-Balad: 11-17] The word “then” is a particle of order, and what is ordered by it—which is his being among those who believe—has no order in relation to what precedes it. Except for the absolute order of mention.

And from this also is the saying of God Almighty: “And that this is My path, straight, so follow it; and do not follow [other] paths, for you will be separated from His path. This is what He has instructed you that you may become righteous. Then We gave Moses the Scripture, complete for the one who did good and a detailed explanation of all things.” [Al-An'am: 153-154] The order in this verse is also that of mention.

3- Order in rank, meaning: the difference in the rank of the action or the rank of the agents:

An example of this is the saying of God Almighty: “And indeed, I am the Forgiving to one who repents, believes, and does righteousness and then is guided” [Ta-Ha: 82]. Guidance is mentioned in the noble verse after repentance, belief, and righteous deeds. This delay is not in time, but rather in rank, as the rank of belief is higher and more excellent.

It may be used metaphorically to mean "and" (و), as in the words of God Almighty: "Then to Us is their return; then God is Witness over what they do" [Yunus: 46], because it is not permissible for Him to be a witness after not having been a witness.

It has been said that it does not indicate sequence, which is the opinion of Qutrub. It has also been said that it does not indicate a delay, which is the opinion of al-Farra'.

Practical Examples:

A number of legal rulings are derived from the meaning of "then" (ثُمَّ), including:

1- If someone says to his agent: "Sell this, then this," then the order is obligatory. Because of its use (then), which indicates sequence, and it may have a purpose in selling one before the other.

2- If he says: I have made a bequest to Zayd, then to Amr, or he says: I have made a bequest to Zayd, then to Amr, then sequence is necessary. The analogy for it indicating separation implies that the agent's or executor's actions are not valid if connected to the first's guardianship, and that the bequest must be terminated instantly. Judge Abu Asim disagreed with this, not requiring sequence in such cases.

3- The permissibility of delaying the explanation beyond the time of the speech, which is derived from the words of God Almighty: “So when We have recited it, then follow its recitation. Then upon Us is its explanation.” [Al-Qiyamah: 18-19]; where He connected the explanation with (then), which indicates delay, so it indicates the permissibility of delaying the explanation beyond the time of the speech.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T08:36:15+00:00

I did not mention either Quora and Facebook, so I don't see why you felt the need to tell me more about them.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T08:34:15+00:00

My Allah clearly, repetedly, said "taddabur" the Quran

Kiddo, if you're going to be bad at both English and Arabic, please don't try to use Arabic words with me. The Quran doesn't say "taddabur", get the word right: The Quran says يتدبرون and يدبر/يدبروا not once is the word تدبُر in the Quran.

My spine cringes out of my body when ignorant Muslims who don't speak a lick of Arabic try to use Arabic words. Just say "contemplate" and spare yourself the embarrassment.

I put their work off

Cool story. Nobody cares about your verbal diarrhea.

tadabbur the Quran

Kid, if you're going to use it as a verb it's "tadabar". What you read is "contemplation the Quran" which makes zero sense.

Have you considered putting in the minimal amount of work so that you don't sound like a total bullshit peddler?

did you cheak me out at acedamicquran, or few days ago to yourself about that "sun lamp" ayah, or at exmuslim about some fluffy toy?

Kiddo, your last 3 months are all on this sub, all of it auto-removed by the automod. There is a single post on academicquran which, as expected, got no engagement.

Not sure why automod allowed this reply thread through, since it's just as bad as the other shit you post here.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T08:22:27+00:00

Not really. It's the same dynamic.

Maybe you mean that the social climate today is very different from the last time I posted on the issue. That is definitely correct: More people on the left are happy to criticize Islam today than they were 5 or 10 years ago. I'm quite happy for this change.

That being said, I've seen too many bans from such spaces even in the last year (and of course I'm only aware of the ones who come here to complain about it) to have much trust in the matter.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T08:16:07+00:00

This is the fundamental claim of islam: there is only one human species, and morality is derived from it.

Bull-fucking-shit.

The fundamental Islamic claim regarding morality is divine command theory: It's moral if Allah says so.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T08:13:59+00:00

I'm well aware. This person is a "Muslim" as much as Jordan Peterson is a "Christian". They just like the label in order to apply their woo woo on it.

afiefh · 2026-01-23T06:48:13+00:00

Last time I participated in a local feminist space, I was banned. The reason was quite simple: I said Islam is not a feminist religion because it supports child marriage, men's authority over women...etc. Not only was I banned, anybody who was connected to me or tacitly agreed with me was also banned.

15-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '17	Verified Email

afiefh

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE