kadhim

^ Really looking forward to seeing the fruits of your smoothly firing synapses. Anyway. I have work to do. I’ll leave you to it, akhi.

^ Brah. Like I’ve said many times before, including quite recently. If what I’m saying is really so ridiculous, it should be easy for articulate why. Feel free to go ahead and do so. This shtick you have where you mug for the camera and mock what I’m saying without offering a response — it’s a little embarrassing, isn’t it? This is a chat site. Just step up and refute me without all the theatrics. Easy peasy. Another thing. Can we give it a rest with this stupid “contrarian” label? I don’t argue things I don’t believe in just for the sake of saying something different. Never have, never will. It’s an insult to serious issues to try to paint things like this.

You know why that is? If you reflect, that’s you being frustrated with yourself because you just “know” I’m wrong but at the same time you realize you can’t really answer what I’m saying. And that’s giving you dissonance. That’s something you need to take ownership of within yourself. Maybe you should be getting beyond simplistic, biased analogies if you want to actually understand a really complex situation. For example. It seems like in some specific cases, of some people, historically, yes, the stealing the house was probably a legit analogy. That did happen in some cases. That was wrong. But in a lot of other cases, no, that’s not an honest analogy at all. In a lot of other cases, the person didn’t own their place. They were renters to Ottoman landlords in Turkey, and Jews went to those landlords, bought the land and took ownership. Which admittedly probably sucked if you were that renter, but that’s business. You can’t say someone stole something from you that you didn’t own in the first place. And in some other cases, Palestinian Arabs left voluntarily because they decided to take a gamble that Arab armies would come and kill their Jewish neighbor and then they could come back and have their neighbor’s land. That happened too. But then the Jews won and they lost the bet and couldn’t come back. Going back to the first case, from your analogy, that is a legitimately awful thing. History is full of awful things like that. Those who were involuntarily forced out, that was a problem and they had a right to be upset about that. But … to respond to that by still sitting there 75 years later, getting the grandchildren and great-grandchildren killed over this old grievance is crazy. There’s no point to that any more. It’s just stubbornness. The truth is, despite the narrative the community has bought into, the Palestinian displacement situation in itself was not a unique or special one-off in recent history. After WW2 there were several mass displacement events with millions of refugees. There was the India and Pakistan partition. There was a refugee situation between Germany and Czechoslovakia. There was one between Greece and Turkey. There were Jews from liberated camps in Europe whose homes had been confiscated by the Nazis and had nowhere to go back to. There was a lot of suck going on. Tens of millions of refugees in the decade after WW2. But in none of these other cases do we see today the descendants three or four generations later standing still in the same place, stewing in rage over 75 year old history. In no other cases do we have the descendants of those refugees sitting in their new countries but the new country refuses to give citizenship to people who have been there multiple generations like we see in Lebanon for example. In other cases, people tried to go back, but if it wasn’t working after a while, they moved on and their families started new lives in new places. It ain’t perfect but that’s how life works on this rock. And then in the case of Gaza, it’s even more ridiculous. Because they have had a piece of land to call their own for almost 20 years and the ability to govern it. They had space and foreign funds to be able to build something positive for themselves. But their own government has instead wasted and destroyed it all in pointless fighting. I’m not. I will test out specific arguments from time to time to see whether people can respond to them. But generally speaking I don’t fake a whole broad position on a large issue just as some mental exercise. I legitimately think the Palestinian movement is a fraud verging on idolatry. I legitimately think it’s crazy that the community is more lockstep about this issue than it is about tawhid. I legitimately think it’s wrong to support the movement, and I legitimately believe people will be questioned about their support for it, especially the self-delusions and dishonesty that are involved in a lot of the modern rhetoric. I’ve mostly resigned myself to just leave you all to it though. But once in a while, one of you comes up with a particularly egregious lie, like Abu Hadi did here, and I can’t help myself but respond.

Yeah dude. You got me. I pulled an elaborate, 20+ year “long con,” ten thousand odd posts, including literally years of pro-Palestinian posts from multiple previous conflicts, just so that, 20 years later, a decade or more past the heyday of the site, I could return and flip on the ~ 10 of you that are left, all to collect the whatever number of “shekels” that’s worth. That’s totally a rational act of reasoning on your part and definitely not the paranoid, bat guano musings of a schizoid off his meds. /s

If you think that there is an obvious, relevant, practical difference between the two with respect to the Arab conquests, such that the Arab conquests were one but obviously not the other, please illuminate us about what the practical difference is in your own words. And similarly, explain in your own words why the Arab conquests, particularly of the areas that later became predominantly Arab and Muslim, were not colonialism. Since this is so obvious, it should be easy for you, right?

Ok. Well, FYI (which stands for “for your information” btw (by the way)), /s = sarcasm. Not a serious literal argument. You’re kind of tense. You should try yoga.

Points for consistency at least. Do you understand what /s means? I don’t believe in volunteering other people for suicide.

So do I take it you object on principle to the historical Arab Muslim conquests as well? You folks sure get racist quick when you can’t respond to things with reason and facts. Is that your Arab colonizer genes acting up? /s Abu Hadi claimed that the Arabs and Palestinians were trying to peacefully negotiate an independent Palestinian state “since 1948.” I was pointing out that this is not true, because I have this character flaw where I think facts matter. Apparently not as easy as it is for some of you folks to cheer on these people getting wiped out in the name of “resistance” from the comfort of your homes. ;)

Honestly that seems like a logical and reasonable solution.

Look dude. You folks can circle the wagons and conspire all you like to gaslight and stonewall and deflect. It will probably continue to work on those naïve college kids you have brainwashed. For a while anyway. But eventually they’re going to notice the inconsistencies, and that you can’t answer basic, reasonable questions about the conflict. And then they’re going to put two and two together and figure out you’ve been lying to them all along. Cheers.

Britain legally acquired this province by defeating the previous legal owners, the Ottomans. Exactly the same way the Ottoman Turks won the province from the Arab colonizers who came before. The same way these Arab colonizers won it from the Roman and Greek colonizers who came before that. All along, it was an imperial province. The last time previously this land was an independent state as opposed to an imperial province was … the Hasmonean dynasty in the 1st century BCE. As the conquerors and overseers of the land, the British had the legal right to do with it as they saw fit, just like the Turkish and Arab and Roman and Greek conquerors before that. They used that power to help designate an independent Jewish state and an independent Arab state out of the province… Much like the European powers designated a bunch of other new independent Arab states — Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and so on — out of other former provinces of the Ottoman lands. By reason, they are either all legitimate or all illegitimate. But, in contrast to misstatements from the like of Abu Hadi, these other new Arab states initially showed ZERO political interest in an independent Palestinian state … until the mid 1960s. Similarly, the Palestinians themselves initially showed ZERO interest in negotiating a (realistic, on something less than the entire land) independent Palestinian state … until the late 1980s. So in contrast to the fictional fantasy story told by Abu Hadi, that the Arabs and Palestinians tried diligently since 1948 to peacefully negotiate and only later turned to violence in desperate frustration, violence was the primary tactic and only tactic for 15 years on the broader Arab level and for 40-45 years on the Palestinian side. It was only the last 30-35 years that Palestinian organizations grudgingly turned to trying — at least on the level of political rhetoric — to negotiate a Palestinian state on realistic bases alongside Israel. Although of course the violent tactics were never dropped really at any point along the way. So the only real constant thread running throughout 75 years has been violent “resistance.” Stubbornly trying the same thing, and stubbornly expecting different results.

Translation: “I have no answer to the actual post, so I’m going to respond to something else entirely and pat myself on the back for that.” Typical.

You want to try that again, answering with some honesty and touching on the actual question asked? There was a British-managed region called Mandatory Palestine up to 1948. And there was a Western/UN proposal for a Palestinian state in 1948. But I didn’t ask you what the Westerners supported. I asked what serious support there was among the Arabs for the idea of a distinct Palestinian state prior to the 1960s. And what support there was among the Palestinians for a peaceful resolution that recognized Israel’s existence, prior to the late 1980s.

Since 1948? No they haven’t. What support was there among the Arabs for even the idea of a Palestinian state separate from other Arab states prior to ~ the mid 1960s? (PLO formed in 1964). The only ones interested in a Palestinian state in 1948 were the Westerners. The Arabs were all against it in 1948. They all launched a war to prevent it. They only got interested in the 1960s and 1970s because it became increasingly obvious they were not going to wipe out Israel so they needed a plan B to solve their ongoing refugee problem. And then among the Palestinians themselves and the political organizations they formed for themselves in the 1960s and onward, which among them was ready, prior to the late 1980s, to entertain any result short of “wipe out the Jews and we get everything?” The PLO as far as I can see didn’t talk publicly about recognizing Israel as a state until 1988 and didn’t do so officially until Oslo in 1993. Who was at the table in any serious way on the Palestinian side during those 45 years from 1948-1993? Like, by all means, have your partisan leanings. The other guys have certainly made their mistakes as well and have had their own belligerent actors over the years. But you can’t just fabricate alternate reality out of thin air. If there had been any Arab interest in a Palestinian state in 1948, they could have had a much better deal than has ever been offered since and likely ever will be offered at this point. So close to insight. Yet so far away.

Technically yes? Appears to be a minimal response to be able to say domestically that they made a response. Understandably, I imagine the Iranian leadership is afraid of doing something big enough to trigger an escalation they aren’t able to handle. On the positive side, seems like they managed not to shoot down any civilian airliners full of Canadians this time. So that’s … something I guess?

Let’s set something straight here. No one has any right or business bringing words like “wajib” or “haram” into this sort of question when it comes to specific companies or whatever. Wajib and haram are terms with serious meanings and require evidence to a level that matches that seriousness. Wajib and haram means that it is literally a sin not to do the thing, or vice versa a sin to do it. When you say something is wajib or haram, you are putting yourself in a position to speak authoritatively on behalf of God. You’re claiming to speak on behalf of God on the subject of patronage of Starbucks or whatever company. That’s pretty presumptuous if you reflect on it for a few nanoseconds. But none of this has that level of evidence behind it when you get to specifics. You can state with some confidence that there are certain high level principles of Islam about politics, about avoiding supporting a clear oppressor, that sort of thing. At a high level of principle. But as to specific questions of, does what country x is doing count as oppression, that’s to a large extent a subjective judgment. Similarly, the question of what it means for an organization to “help” such a country or realm. Does that mean help the country specifically in the specific acts of oppression? Or something more general? And then the question, as an average person, does that then obligate you not to do business with this company. If you want to make arguments about haram when it comes to doing business with a company, you’re reasoning at two layers removed from the original country you’re talking about. So you have to prove to a standard of certainty not only that the country is engaging in oppression, but you have to prove with certainly those other layers, from the country to the company, and from the company to your actions as an individual. But it’s subjective at every layer. Anyone who gives a sweeping specific answer for a specific company in relation to this is just telling you a story. Anyone who makes claims to the effect of, it’s a sin and God will potentially punish you if you buy a coffee at McDonalds because McDonalds has restaurants in Israel or what not, that person is just making claims out of thin air. There is simply no basis for that strong an inference by any standards of classical jurisprudence. This is for the question of wajib and haram. Of course, the burden of proof for fuzzier discussions of ethical reasoning, of should or should not is much much lower, and allows for somewhat vaguer considerations.

This is good, but it lacks a bit of that raw, 96-hour adderal bender unhingedness. The Madlib, unpunctuated, kitchen sink diatribe part is captured pretty well though. I rate this a solid 8 stones to the head out of 10.

Why are you deliberately choosing to lie about my position here? I have never expressed any issues whatsoever with mutah in general. Quite the contrary in fact.

Let me add a couple of comments for the OP. First off. I think to have a fully objective conversation about this topic, it’s important to understand one thing. Mutah in itself is supposed to be a very open-ended container that can contain a lot of different types of relationships. It doesn’t apply a lot of hard, top-down restrictions. It’s very easy to enter into one. It requires some honest conversation about what they’re both looking for, how long they expect to feel comfortable right now being in a relationship, some sort of gift, and 15-30 seconds of saying some words in front of God to solemnize it. And it’s done. There aren’t really any other hard and fast rules and expectations. There’s considerations if a woman gets pregnant. There are requirements for a waiting period after it’s over in the case they break it off early or the time period ends and they don’t renew. But other than that, it can be whatever two freely choosing adults want it to be. That’s not a big. That’s a feature. If regular marriage is Windows, mutah is Linux. There’s no one top-down model. You pick what your relationship looks like. For a good number of people at one time or another, that’s an attractive proposition. Second. That said, there are arrangements within this that will be more and less ethical. Most in positions of leadership in the community will agree that in the extreme sort of case that a woman is acutely desperate financially, doesn’t really want to marry, but is considering it only so that she is not homeless or starving, most spiritual leaders will understand that the solution for this is to either help that person access Islamic charity funds like zakat, sadaqah, khums, or if that fails, help direct the person to secular charity organizations or programs to help. So that she has some day to day stability. After that, the woman has enough foundation to think about what she wants, and feel stable to consider offers of marriage and pick an arrangement that benefits her as a person and allows her as much happiness as possible too. That’s what most spiritual leaders are going to do. If some of them push such women toward mutah as a solution, I will say that’s not ethical, and that most community leadership will agree. As you yourself mentioned, the larger Swedish Shia organization took action against the ones allegedly involved in this. This should be distinguished from the case where two people, whether or not they’re in a totally equal position or not, both have enough stability and room to move that they can freely mutually choose to enter a union of mutual convenience. Where it’s not a Disney love story, where compromises are being made, but they both get enough out of it that they are reasonably happy with it or at least tolerable and no one is forced into it for mere survival. There’s a long history of adult men and woman “coming to an agreement” and living together in that. I think, as notme alluded to, it’s a good idea not to mix these two cases up.

That’s not what the quotes you shared seemed to be saying though. They seem to be saying the disagreement was about how you reach certainty about the sunset, not whether or not sunset is the ultimate measure.

I’m not going to comment on IGN’s tone or whatnot. Maybe that could be better, probably it’s not helpful to invoke the ghulat or what not. Fine. But in terms of the substance of the argument, I’m not sure you’re really bringing an effective response to that here. I find this response is inadvertently fuzzing together two different things: What the ideal criterion out there the world is for marking the end of the day How we can tell with confidence/certainty that this criterion has been met From what I am reading from these quotes you are posting here, there was not actually a disagreement about the first thing. There was traditionally agreement that the sun sinking below a perfect, unobstructed horizon is the standard that marks the end of the day. The disagreement was about how you can be confident in general that has happened. Look and witness the sun sink below the horizon directly with your eyes. Or indirectly infer that it has already happened because of fading redness in the eastern sky. But both were about feeling comfortable that the sun had gone down, with the understanding that the sunset marked the end of the day. That’s a reasonable legitimate discussion in the 4th century AH. The time of local sunset is a somewhat complicated function of date and time, latitude, and longitude. In the 4th century AH, that would have been a hard thing to compute with precision in general, and even if you could compute it, you’d need precise watches to keep track of that. There, it makes sense to take some precautions. But in 2024, it’s trivial to compute the moment of sunset in any location to the second. If you’re somewhere with an electronic device hooked up to a network, you can know what time it is with certainty and know when sunset is with certainty. There’s no ambiguity here, so the notion of needing to wait as a precaution has no real validity or meaning anymore. Now. If you happen to find yourself in a low tech situation, like you’re out in the bush somewhere and you’re stuck relying on seeing the sunset with your eyes, in that case, sure, you can fall back to the precaution to be sure. But these days, 99.99% of the time there is no point to it. There’s no good reason to wait a bunch of extra minutes these days.

Modern “political Islam” is in general a walking corpse, a hopeless anachronism, a dead end with nothing to offer the world, an embarrassing failure everywhere it’s been tried. Erdogan is just another in a line of failed figureheads leading these sorts of movements. May these false idols pass from the pages of history. And soon. Far too much time has been lost, far too many nations destroyed or stagnated, far too many lives lost or crushed in the name of this mistaken vision of Islam. With these sorts of historical mistakes abandoned, we can hopefully go back to the drawing board to craft a better vision of what Islam can be and what it can offer humanity in the 21st century and beyond.

Mmmhmm. That’s how they gitcha.

Explain to me, without a bunch of emotional rhetoric or throwing of insults because someone even asked the question, what bothers you so much about this. Why are you offended? I want to hear someone make an actual rational case.

Industrial alcohol as a solvent is not a taharat issue. Because it’s not a beverage meant for drinking. Only alcohol-based mixtures meant for drinking that intoxicate are an issue from a taharat perspective. Alcohol as a solvent is taher. Universal view as far as I am aware.