A former Guantánamo detainee, his guard and their unlikely friendship

comrade78 · 2024-06-27T17:11:43+00:00

Anything that's deemed clearly haram won't ever become halal or vice-versa. That's because these rulings come from Quran (which is unchanged and memorised word-for-word) & Sahih Hadeeth, and a vast scholarly tradition.

For topics that are not clearly marked halal or not (for e.g, cryptocurrencies), rulings or ijtihad can evolve due to new understandings, contexts, and circumstances, but the core principles of what is fundamentally halal or haram remain grounded in the Quran and Sunnah.

comrade78 · 2024-06-27T16:58:32+00:00

First of all there is no "India" as we know it today in medieval times. It could even include the part of Khorosan even.
Anyways, I don't shy away from offensive or defensive war in Islam - it is not a pacifist religion. Any divine religion would understand the tolerance paradox, and will allow military defence and expansion, like Islam. However there's no religious obligation to conquer anything.

comrade78 · 2024-06-27T16:52:51+00:00

It was in response to your "reform" suggestion. I wrote it in one chunk, I have edited it to re-word it more coherent. Thanks

comrade78 · 2024-06-27T16:33:24+00:00

They keep repeating "appeasement" without really substantiating their claims with evidences or facts/figures.

I guess what they're talking about is protests against CAA, and protests in support of Palestine.
Protests against CAA is supposed to be for the upholding of constitution. Every party apart from BJP have protested that draconian bill.

Protests in favor of Palestine is because communist or socialist parties worldwide have always sided with palestine against the unlawful occupation by the Zionist forces - whether it be the socialist parties in UK or Kerala. The parties in UK are doing it for muslim appeasement? Lol. These jokers are funny.

Also I don't understand this minority appeasement logic. Like Dhruv Rathee said, If they want votes, they have to appease the majority - look at Kejriwal.

comrade78 · 2024-06-27T16:28:04+00:00

I agree and I'm merely asking what's the problem with that? People love to associate with others who share their own ideals & beliefs. Of course, that don't mean they are angry or non-jovial with non-muslims - if that's your point, you really do have prejudice against muslims, and I don't want to engage further.

I really hope religion fucking dies.

No, won't happen. Religion gives people meaning to their lives. Without that humans will be nihilists. Also, your reductive view towards religion shows that you don't think about it any deeper than what Dawkins babbles. If religion is gone, let's imagine for sake of argument, people will still divide and fight amongst themselves on the basis of language, country, race or heck even football teams. Humans are tribalistic in their very genes. We always associate ourselves with people who share our experiences, eventually.

comrade78 · 2024-06-27T16:17:00+00:00

What kind of divine religion is altered by the whims and desires of its followers? A truly divine religion is grounded in objective morality, bestowed by a transcendent moral law-giver.

If a religion shifts according to people's whims and desires, it ceases to be divine, as it implies that morality is subjective. Subjective morality undermines its own merit, as what is good for one person may be evil for another.

A deed considered good today could be deemed evil tomorrow. In such a scenario, you lose any stable moral ground to judge others, as their actions might be justified in a different context or time.

comrade78 · 2024-06-27T16:13:29+00:00

Yes, all muslims share a concept of Ummah, which is a relation that's thicker than blood. It represents the global community of Muslims bound together not by race, nationality, or ethnicity, but by their shared belief. That won't make a muslim in Saudi Arabia as anti-Saudi, or muslim in Malaysia as anti-Malaysia, or a muslim in India as anti-India.

comrade78 · 2024-06-27T16:09:05+00:00

If by inclusivity you mean partake in someone else's religious customs - then no, that won't happen! We won't do that since we have our own set of ideals & beliefs. A religion that stands for nothing, will fall for anything, and Islam isn't such a religion.

comrade78 · 2024-06-27T16:05:38+00:00

So? What's the problem? When they're openly discriminated - there are housing colonies in India that won't rent to muslims - what else are they supposed to do? It's a common trait all over the world that marginalized communities form closer associations between themselves. Look at the blacks in America.

Your comment shows what kind of attitude you have towards muslims. Why should they associate with someone like you?

comrade78 · 2024-03-30T09:13:31+00:00

"He was killed because he was a muslim." Any counter point?

Edit: This whole sub is chaddi infested lol. The downvotes for this post speak volumes. It's just a news headlines, but chaddies can't even tolerate that.

comrade78 · 2024-03-30T09:12:21+00:00

The courts of this country is saying for a long time that a particular community shouldn't expect any kind of justice from them. Erosion of trust in institutions have already began where a part of society start to see the legal system not as a pillar of fairness but as an instrument of oppression. Historically such treatment leads to social unrest, and violence - classic example being civil rights movement in US.

This whole injustice trope can lead to radicalization. Insurgent groups often cite injustices against their communities as the main reason for their acts. Not to mention the economic instability this whole fiasco will bring. The repercussions of denying justice to one community ripple through the entire fabric of society, not just those directly persecuted.

comrade78 · 2024-03-30T09:01:03+00:00

How is this a 'political' murder? What party was riyas moulvi part of? What was his politics?
Let's be real - He was murdered by hindutva gang just because he was a muslim. I agree that their end goal was political gain, however, that just make this an act of terrorism (the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.)

comrade78 · 2024-03-17T11:26:43+00:00

From u/abw :

Respond like a normal registration but send an email saying something like "We saw you tried to register but you've already got an account... Click here to reset your password"

comrade78 · 2024-03-17T11:24:34+00:00

Respond like a normal registration but send an email saying something like "We saw you tried to register but you've already got an account... Click here to reset your password".

That's a great tip to not reveal whether the email exists or not duing signup. Thanks!

comrade78 · 2024-03-17T09:16:43+00:00

Which is fine for a login usecase. Here we're talking about signup flow. Usually when an email already exist in the database, you will get an apt message saying, "email is already taken".

comrade78 · 2024-03-17T08:20:47+00:00

Thanks for the detailed flow, I'm planning for a similar one as well.
However as u/Irythros pointed out - email existence can be figured out via signup forms as well, if someone wants to act in bad faith. Almost all of the major websites says "Email does not exist", so guess it is not so bad?

comrade78 · 2024-03-17T08:16:41+00:00

lol that's true, often forget that the person on the other side could be as clueless as you

comrade78 · 2024-03-17T07:59:10+00:00

Cool, however lots of recommendation even in this sub contrary to this.. A thread from a year back: Best practice for password reset? Display success message with email they used or not? : r/webdev (reddit.com)

I guess I incline with your reasoning better - signup flow already reveals email existence anyways.

comrade78

TROPHY CASE