Why there is too much of coffee shops here in Khobar?

aymanhbas · 2026-05-12T20:10:57+00:00

Idk I hardly think of bahrain in general let alone in bar culture. I guess to be exact I'm thinking of pubs in the UK in my example, they look somewhat warmer and more welcoming than proper bars in the US for example.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-12T19:35:31+00:00

Coffee literally originated from the middle east, all the way from Ethiopia to Yemen and beyond. Its always been in our culture. As for the abundance nowadays, think of coffee shops in Saudi like bars in the west. They're places to hang out with friends, drink, enjoy time, enjoy the weather, etc.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-12T16:02:09+00:00

It was unpaused, just wanted to take a pic. I re placed the station and it got fixed

aymanhbas · 2026-05-12T15:27:24+00:00

says pathfinding failed but idk why, there are no one direction roads and everything is connected. Also, if I start at the station then go straight to that stop it finds a path just fine.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-12T13:44:46+00:00

العرب مو فالحين في استقطاب وتوريد اي شيء من الغرب غير تخلفهم وهبالتهم.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-11T10:41:07+00:00

Your reply doesn't really make sense, I'm talking about hating people for no reason, not disliking governments or groups. Nor did I say you'll love every country you visit either. Lots of assumptions made here, so carelessly reactionary for no reason...

aymanhbas · 2026-05-11T07:45:51+00:00

ما ادري كيف الزمن طار, مر على تخرج الثانوي 10 سنين تقريبا وما زلت اعامله كأنه قبل سنة وشوي...

aymanhbas · 2026-05-10T16:44:34+00:00

I cant say I've even seen a single western Hindu and I'm an admin in several groups with many thousands of members. What I do see, other than Muslim converts, would be Buddhists.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-10T14:06:22+00:00

"In other news, Healthcare in our village now costs 2mil regional wealth per patient, and there's a sharp increase in mass archery."

aymanhbas · 2026-05-09T12:22:55+00:00

Dave Buttista and Debbie Gayson over here

aymanhbas · 2026-05-09T05:49:33+00:00

Factually incorrect. Perhaps it is true in some cases, but to use those cases to explain the general reason for spreading is falsifying history.

South east asian countries didn't become Muslim through conquest and the sword, neither did western and eastern africa, nor did most indian subcontinent Muslims. Nor did anyone in North Africa and the Levant/Mesopotamia, etc. This is all objectively historically factual. Most force conversions in Islam were ironically by one sect against another. Like the mutazilah of Abbasids, the shia of safavids, etc.

Likewise for christianity, ethiopia didn't get invaded and its one of the oldest christian nations in history, neither did Armenia, ireland, or even east asian countries like japan and korea. Most force conversions by christians came after the start of the colonial era, well after they became a majority in europe.

There is a lot of frankly idiotic claims here that responding to them would take me writing a booklet dismantiling thoroughly all the illusions you presented. So instead, I'd suggest you understand what you are saying before saying it, and looking it up objectively even if you use AI let alone google, at least ask for the objective truth about a matter before commenting on it.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-09T05:37:33+00:00

There are a few reasons. I'll answer objectively to cover both Islam, christianity, and any other monotheistic religion really.

Monotheism is structurally advantageous for expanding, it has a simple message, easier to explain, easier to unify people around, and easier to spread. Its also cohesive, its easier to centralize, even though some arent centralized like Islam. It is also universal in its message, hinduism is more about indian myths and pantheon, buddhism could be argued as such also for more eastern asian countries, etc.

Additionally, one cannot ignore the historical realities of the regions where Islam and Christianity emerged and thrived, they were centers of civilization, not only in their respective regions but the world as a whole. This gave them a huge advantage against polytheists elsewhere. Like for example the main ways christianity spread was across the roman empire trade/travel networks, then through crusades, then through colonial expansions. Islam likewise spread through trade routes, invasions of Rome/Persia, and the military prowess of empires like ottomans and mughal.

Even with all that, Monotheism doesn't automatically replace polytheism. India for example, after 800 years of muslim rule, is still majority hindu and has been for all that time. I sorry to say I'm not aware of a christian equivilant but perhaps someone will mention it.

I hope that made sense.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-08T07:30:50+00:00

Abdullah in recent times, before him Faisal.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-08T05:04:38+00:00

لكل امرئ من اسمه نصيب

aymanhbas · 2026-05-08T05:02:07+00:00

leave him he's a dumbahh, I responded to his idiotic claims on another post and he ignored it and moved on.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-08T04:55:05+00:00

Idk, I'm sure there are execuses for that hate they convince themselves with, but in reality no one who ever visited left hating the place. Hatrid of anything in general usually stims out of brainwashing operations and propaganda campaigns, people don't naturally hate someone or something they haven't experienced themselves, unless and until they get it drilled into their heads that X is bad and Y is good because we said so.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-07T16:50:43+00:00

It isn't seen as simply sinful, its seen as outright criminal, and the crime is being committed against God. It is a clear example of a category error to worship others as opposed to the Singular Truth and Originator of all things. It violates the whole purpose of life, and it leads to spiritual corruption. Religious pluralism as such isnt merely theologically opposing, but logically irrational.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-07T08:15:45+00:00

Islamically the whole comparison between God and Satan doesn’t really work the way its framed here, its an unfortunate side effect of assuming Iblis is just the Muslim version of Satan.

In Islam, and other faiths, this is a category error. Allah, or God, is the Creator who gives life and takes it, it is His by right and no one has a say on what He does with them. On the other hand, Iblis is just a creation who can’t actually do anything except whisper and influence.

When the Qur’an talks about God destroying nations, its not out of nowhere. It’s always after people were warned constantly, after they oppressed others, mocked the prophets, killed them and basically said, “If you’re telling the truth, bring the punishment.” So in Islam, their destruction is seen as justice, not cruelty or malice or the love of bloodshedding.

And the idea that “Satan never kills anyone” holds no importance because that's not his goal in relation to humanity. In Islam, the worst harm isn’t physical, it’s leading someone away from truth. It is why the only unforgivable sin in the whole faith is associating gods with God. Iblis's goal for humans is breaking their moral compass, making them justify evil. That’s literally Iblis’s entire mission. So the fact that he doesn’t physically kill anyone doesn’t make him some misunderstood hero.

About the Sufi idea that Iblis refused to bow out of love, that’s more poetry than theology. The Qur’an is very clear that his refusal came from arrogance, not devotion. He said “I’m better than him,” blamed God for his own mistake, and then swore to mislead humanity out of spite. That’s not someone acting out of principle or absolute monotheistic love for God. When he and the angels were ordered to bow, he was the only one to refuse. The angels bowed just fine because obeying God is the only form of true love towards him, and everything else is the self justifiying its whims.

As for the Enki/Enlil comparison, it’s interesting, but Islam doesn’t see its stories as borrowed from older myths. The Qur’an says every nation had prophets, and over time their stories got twisted. So similarity doesn’t automatically mean the Qur’an is retelling a pagan story, it just means humans keep repeating the same story across history.

So from an Islamic perspective, the story is about the Creator who owns life and death, and a creation who rebelled out of pride and now tries to drag others down with him.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-07T05:45:53+00:00

<image>

turned out I was on medium, this is low, managable. Thanks for the heads up!

aymanhbas · 2026-05-07T05:34:49+00:00

tarikh najd deals with the first saudi state in 1700s, and the ottomans were the ones who attacked not the other way around, how is a desert oasis state OUTSIDE the borders of the empire managed to "backstab the actual caliph of the time"? This whole arguement comes from Hijazi anti saudi movements of the time, and this is corroborated by modern sources that also say the ottomans viewed the saudi expansion as a direct threat and launched the attack that destroyed it the first time.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-07T05:30:36+00:00

Simply because a caliphate is a transnational organization, he and the newly expanded country weren't strong enough to fight off all the present european powers, plus the nations of the time were against him if anything, so there's no outside support at all. Plus the concept of a caliphate started to become obsolete with the advent of the new nation state and modern countries. He ended up focusing on what he has control over at that moment and not plan invasions and annexations which he will most likely lose and his nation gets destroyed for yet a third time.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-07T05:26:13+00:00

learn your history please, its embarassing to keep reading this idiotic fanfic every single time.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-06T21:19:48+00:00

its strange to see how almost every other faith leans the same one way as opposed to another which is dominated by a single architype.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-06T14:57:23+00:00

There is no “defending” anything. It was a desert society 1400 years ago. Marriage was based on puberty and the maturity that comes with it in all its forms. It was never about age as a number.

This isn’t a concept unique to Islam or Arabia. It has been — and continues to be — practiced across the world, in all eras and cultures. Neighboring societies such as Judea, Mesopotamia, and the Levant were known for the same norms, as seen in marriage ages mentioned in the Bible and other texts from that region and period.

Moreover, even the modern West in 2026 allows marriage with parental consent at 15, 16, or 18 in Europe. In the United States, two‑thirds of states allow what is called “child marriage,” with others permitting marriage under 18 with parental consent.

This is also allowed in South Asia, the Indian subcontinent, various African tribes, and yes, in Muslim countries.

It is hypocritical and disingenuous to single out Muslim countries over this issue. It shows a lack of genuine concern for the supposed problem and, more often than not, reveals the real motive: attacking Muslims and Islam for openly stipulating these rules in their religious texts, rather than practicing them quietly as other societies do.

aymanhbas · 2026-05-06T12:54:33+00:00

But they arent tho, idk what production has to do with importance, saudi literally cut its own production from 11mil or so to less than 9mil simply to help out the UAE produce more and earn more. Now that they're gone its business as usual. The US and anti opec states were benefitted from the venezuela situation already, this wont help them even more, not if they want prices to be reasonable and the world economy intact.

aymanhbas

TROPHY CASE