🕊️ سعد

قال رسول الله ﷺ: «كُنْ في الدُّنيا كأنَّك غريبٌ أوْ عابِرُ سبيلٍ»

@MattisRedacted @POlGNANT @iloveqatar This narrated by one person in thousands of miles away in Iraq not Madina where prophet lived all his life. In his 90s senile when there was problems between Sunni and Shia, the Shia do not like Aisha.

@POlGNANT @iloveqatar Again, the text very clearly says she was nine.

I notice you didn’t deny that she was nine

@Whizdom01 If you genuinely believe that these are words of Satan then you’re retarded. No wonder you believe in all that crap in Christianity

@ReflektiveSoul Is it that you guys lack the ability to read and digest a simple question?

Nice try, but you just ran from the question like Usain Bolt on steroids 😂 I didn’t ask you who deceived us. I asked you this: If Allah was willing and able to perfectly fool every single person on earth—including Jesus’ own mother, disciples, and the Roman execution squad—into

People before the Qur’an weren’t morally blind. They had fitrah, the innate moral compass every human is born with. Revelation doesn’t create morality; it anchors it, clarifies it and corrects where people go off the rails. Your question assumes objective morality only starts when a book appears. That’s your mistake. Revelation is a confirmation and preservation of truths humans already sense, not a brand-new invention dropped out of the sky. So yes, people before the Qur’an had access to objective morality. What they lacked was a final, preserved uncorrupted standard that prevents the exact chaos you’re arguing for: everyone treating their personal feelings as universal truth. You’re proving the need for revelation by asking the question.

@ReflektiveSoul @POlGNANT @sadmompg @shawzsav Not a cliche either, you’re a Muslim correct? Did people who lived before the Quran was written have access to the same objective morality that the people who live after it do?

Religion is a coping mechanism

You’re pretending you’ve found a moral axiom as self-evident as math, but you haven’t. “Worst suffering is worse than highest bliss” isn’t a fact, it’s a preference. You feel it’s obvious, so you treat it like a law of the universe. But unlike 2+2 it can’t be demonstrated, measured or proven independent of human sentiment. It collapses the moment someone rejects your premise, and you’ve got no external standard to appeal to. That’s the whole problem: You keep importing moral assumptions and acting like they’re objective truths. They’re not. They’re emotional intuitions you’re elevating into universal rules. Math works because its axioms don’t rely on human psychology. Your moral axiom does, which means it’s not objective, no matter how loudly you insist otherwise.

@ReflektiveSoul @POlGNANT @sadmompg @shawzsav If you can’t concede that the worst possible suffering for all concious creatures is “better” than the most possible bliss for all concious creatures, then words don’t have meaning and you aren’t considering the argument. I would argue that that value judgment is as true as 2+2.

“The worst suffering is worse than the highest wellbeing” is already a value judgment, not a scientific fact. You’re assuming a moral hierarchy to justify a moral hierarchy. That’s circular. Evolution doesn’t hand out values, and physics doesn’t care about suffering or wellbeing. And claiming religion evolves is just a lazy cliché. Human interpretation evolves, the moral foundation doesn’t. You’re confusing people changing with principles changing. If your system rests on assumptions you can’t justify, it isn’t objective. If you’re borrowing moral axioms to sound consistent, you’re not grounding anything.. you’re just patching holes.

@ReflektiveSoul @POlGNANT @sadmompg @shawzsav No, objective morality may still exist. If you admit that the worst possible suffering is better than the highest state of wellbeing, then you can ground your morality without an external god claim. The ethics of religion also evolve over time. You don’t get to define morality.

If morality is just an evolved survival instinct, then nothing is truly good or bad. It’s whatever helps a group survive including genocide, exploitation and oppression. Evolution doesn’t produce ethics. And if everything is subjective, you can’t claim atheists are morally equal or better. Those words lose all meaning. Religion gives a fixed standard and accountability. Your view gives instincts dressed up as principles. Don’t call that morality.

@POlGNANT @sadmompg @shawzsav I can’t speak for all atheists but I define morality as an evolved trait that develops in social species that helped us survive. All we have is our subjective morality which will ideally, become better over time. Christians and theists have nothing over atheists morally.

@HeadCannon1776 @oliverburdick Without lies Christianity dies

@ReflektiveSoul @oliverburdick 🤣🤣🤣 habibi your false prophet was a demonically possessed pedophile and a sodomite (raped by 5 black men). I'd much rather be fat than that.

What’s the best translation of the Bible?

@HeadCannon1776 @oliverburdick Tell me you’re fat without telling me

@ReflektiveSoul @oliverburdick burn the koran to make bacon

@ziin80 المشكله انك تحسب العالم الغربي اللي تقدسه كله احترام وامان وعدل. ماراح تعرف قيمة بلدك الحقيقية الا لما تعيش برا مثل ما جرب غيرك

تلومين ليش الناس يشوفونك انتي غلط؟ ردك هذا كله عنصرية وغباء وتهجم ، ابو البجاحة ووساعة الوجه اللي عندك 🤡🙂 الواحد لازم يراجع نفسه، صحيح ان المجتمع فيه اشخاص يظلمون، بس لازم الواحد يراجع نفسه وكلامه واخلاقه وتعامله ويكون عارف الادب وملتزم بحدوده.

@Rana1042095 @1lliss مقصد كلامي سيأتي جيل سيفهم معنى هالكلمة افضل من ما وصلنا عليه من فهم القرآن

@ReflektiveSoul @1lliss بس انته لهسه ماكلت شنو معناها الكلمة

يبدوا أن الله نزل كتاب غير مفهوم

How do you even claim to be Muslim while casually tossing Bukhari aside like it’s a blog post you don’t like? What kind of “modern Islamist” builds his religion on whatever fits his mood and then accuses others of ignoring evidence? You’re hilarious. You deny Bukhari deny Sunnah deny the conditions of jihad deny classical fiqh,then suddenly you want to play guardian of Palestine? Pick a lane. You’re the one saying “don’t obey rulers when it comes to helping the oppressed” but you reject the very hadiths and fiqh principles that define when disobedience is allowed. Then try to use Qur’an 4:75 as a political slogan instead of an actual legal ruling with conditions, scholars and centuries of interpretation behind it. And now you’re asking: “Will you obey rulers if they forbid helping the Palestinians?” Let me flip it back on you: How would you even know the correct ruling when you’ve already thrown away the Sunnah, the scholars, and the jurisprudence that explain it? You can’t pick and choose. Either you take Islam as a whole (Qur’an and Sunnah) or stop pretending you’re the brave defender of the oppressed. Because right now you’re not defending Palestine. You’re using their suffering as a prop in your anti-Sunnah argument. That’s real hypocrisy.

Saudi Arabia is the true Holy Land 🇸🇦 They prayed for rain and INSTANTLY rained. TAKBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER!

@1v6ii4 @z547033861 @POlGNANT @gh_aaadh @HkrNynja @laamaa79 @al_mrany78123

@1v6ii4 @z547033861 @POlGNANT @gh_aaadh @HkrNynja @laamaa79 @al_mrany78123 يا متخلفه يا ناقصه عقل ودين روحي اضبطي هرموناتك ومشاعرك قبل تهبدين وتتهمين الناس على باطل. ماقلت اي شيء يوحي اني رفضت تساوي الذنوب واذا فهمك ناقص لهالدرجة اطلعي برا تويتر مو مكانك ابداً يا جاهله

@davids_s_ Western values

Western values= Degeneracy Islam is not compatible with degeneracy.

كل آية في القرآن لها زمن يظهر فيه معناها بوضوح، ومع توالي الأجيال تتكشف أبعاد لم تكن مفهومة لمن قبلهم. خذ مثالًا بسيطًا: لو سألت مسلم قبل ١٠٠ سنة عن معنى {وَلَآمُرَنَّهُمْ فَلَيُغَيِّرُنَّ خَلْقَ اللَّهِ} فلن يجد تفسيرًا ينطبق على واقعٍ يراه أمامه، لأن المشهد لم يكن موجودًا أصلًا. أما اليوم، ومع ما نشاهده من الغرب وهم يعبثون بأجساد أبنائهم ويحوّلون الذكر أنثى والأنثى ذكرًا تحت شعار “الحرية” صار معنى الآية أوضح من الشمس. هذا هو القرآن الكريم… معجز في كل عصر، وكل جيل يفهم منه ما يكشفه له زمنه.

جميل الأغلب يقولون أنهم فاهمين القران سواء بمفسرين أو من غير مفسرين طيب أنا حبيت أفهم معنى الكلمة هذي ؟

This just shows you’ve never opened a real historical source. He fought practices every major Sunni scholar before him called shirk.. grave worship, vows to the dead, and seeking help from saints. Your Taif story is propaganda. It was a military battle against armed forces, not some massacre of civilians like you repeat from 200 year old Ottoman pamphlets. And the ISIS claim is the laziest take of all. ISIS hated Ibn AbdulWahhab, called him a sellout, and labeled his followers apostates because he refused the Khariji mindset. So how is he a Khariji when the actual Khawarij considered him a disbeliever? If you want to criticize, do it with facts, not with recycled colonial narratives that fall apart under five minutes of reading.

A big surprise is coming. Good for us. Bad for the Islamists.

You did reduce morality to preference, you just dressed it up as “the most good.” But the most good according to who? According to you, your society your mood your calculation. That’s subjectivity with a calculator on top. And your hypothetical still doesn’t prove your point. Here’s the real answer: In that impossible scenario, perfect knowledge perfect certainty zero margin of error, the act isn’t justified because I like torture, but because one duty overrides another: preventing mass murder overrides causing individual harm. That’s not subjective. It’s hierarchy of principles, the same way “don’t lie” yields to “don’t allow murder” in every moral system worth anything. Now the twist you’re ignoring: If your worldview is right, morality = whatever produces “the most good” then torture IS moral in that scenario, full stop. Not because it’s right, but because your own rule forces it. Your framework leads directly to justifying torture, war crimes, eugenics, whatever you can argue produces “net good.” And that’s the problem with your position: You pretend it’s neutral and rational, but it collapses into utilitarian subjectivity the moment you stress-test it. So here’s the answer you wanted but won’t like: In your hypothetical, the moral choice is driven by objective duties in conflict, not personal taste. In your worldview, anything is fair game as long as you call it “for the greater good.” That’s the difference.

@ReflektiveSoul @virticon2 @inqalabiiii @AskPerplexity @Lilith_Atheist I never said morality is “whatever I feel.” That is YOUR strawman. What I said was that morality is determining that action which creates the most good in a particular situation. And I don’t think I got your answer: Is it moral to torture in my hypothetical or not?

The more you study Islam, the more you want it to disappear.