Class First

@postjawline I doubt it. This is disgusting compared to the sort of fish you can get in Japan

The Japanese would probably greatly enjoy a “VFD Fish Fry” since they’re so fascinated with Americans and meat. We can do fish in an interesting and delicious way too

@McBeefy636 @hotcake_kun_ Shut the fuck up

@hotcake_kun_ Texas ain't free and it's full. It's hot, humid, and you will sit in stand still traffic at all times of the day trying to achieve anything. Go somewhere else. We are full.

このポストにもの凄い勢いで英語のリプが付いてて(またゾンビが...)と思ってたら 「テキサスに来い。無料だ」 「南部州は肉ゾーンと呼ばれている」 「ケンタッキー州ではどこでも食える」 みたいなアメリカンたちの熱烈勧誘だった。ありがとう…！いつかNFL観戦とTEXMEXと南部ビーフの為に渡米する

@Maarblek Why are you so intent on letting the Israelis destroy your political movement?

Ever since regime change in the 1930s the best strategy for any country fighting a war against the USA has always been to appeal to the Big Blue Blob for help lobbying against America's own military efforts

@Aryana8170 @yasinabdelmagid The Hanafi madhhab is the least inclined to rely on hadiths of any of the four. If Abu Hanifa thought alcohol was halal it's a valid view at the law, period, because he was more aware of the hadith corpus than either of us and that was his view.

@ClassFirst2 @yasinabdelmagid No it wont be revived, you have no clue about hanafi madhhab, and you misapplied the madhhab in this discussion and even said the said the hadith cannot be applied by hanafis, only hanbalis. You clearly did not know the full picture and researched it after i exposed you.

Stop lying upon Imām Abū Ḥanīfa and stop speaking without understanding. You took a few lines from an academic paper and thought you found a loophole to make alcohol ḥalāl and attach it to the name of a great imām. First, understand what nabīdh is before you open your mouth. Nabīdh is not automatically khamr. It is water in which dates or raisins are soaked. If it remains non-intoxicating, it is permissible. If it ferments and intoxicates, it becomes ḥarām. This is from the Sunnah itself, not something Abū Ḥanīfa invented. The Prophet ﷺ said: «كُلُّ مُسْكِرٍ حَرَامٌ» “Every intoxicant is ḥarām.” (Muslim) And he ﷺ said: «مَا أَسْكَرَ كَثِيرُهُ فَقَلِيلُهُ حَرَامٌ» “Whatever intoxicates in large amounts, even a small amount of it is ḥarām.” (Tirmidhī) This ends your entire argument. There is no madhhab in Islām that allows intoxicants. As for Abū Ḥanīfa, he never allowed intoxication. He spoke about classification between khamr and other drinks in early legal terminology, not about permitting people to drink alcohol. Even in what you yourself quoted, it clearly says: “unless it intoxicates.” So you quoted the condition and then ignored it. That is either deception or complete lack of understanding. Then you bring the narration of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and twist it. The report is about a man who drank nabīdh that had fermented to the point of intoxication, not permissible drink. He became intoxicated, so ʿUmar punished him. After that, the drink was diluted (كَسَرَهُ بِالْمَاءِ) to remove its intoxicating effect. So the narration is a proof against you, not for you. It shows intoxication is punished, not permitted. Then you come with Ibn Baṭṭūṭa as if he is a mujtahid. He is a traveler describing what people did. People drinking something somewhere does not make it ḥalāl. He himself says it was forbidden by the majority. So even your own citation refutes you. And then you attribute all of this to the Ḥanafī madhhab, while the actual transmitted position through Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad al-Shaybānī, and the entire later school is clear: anything that intoxicates is ḥarām, whether little or much. This is the settled position, not your cherry-picked fragments. Fear Allah and stop using the name of Abū Ḥanīfa to justify what Allah and His Messenger ﷺ made ḥarām.

@Aryana8170 @yasinabdelmagid Because an old ruling can be revived, as has occurred numerous times throughout the history of the shari‘a, and the early Hanafi position on alcohol seems factually correct and more consistent with the ‘illa of the prohibition on alcohol (avoiding intoxication).

@ClassFirst2 @yasinabdelmagid It was not the only position, the other existed too, and it became the madhahb later and today all hanafis rely on this. Why post an opinion that is not followed anymore among hanafis?

@Aryana8170 @yasinabdelmagid Also note that "intoxication" to Abu Hanifa meant actual drunkenness, not simply being a bit tipsy. He allowed small amounts of alcohol in order to "give strength" - in other words, drinking in moderation

@Aryana8170 @yasinabdelmagid Yes, the Hanafi position CHANGED several hundred years after Abu Hanifa's death. But the early position of the school, and of Abu Hanifa himself, was that non-intoxicating amounts of nabidh are not prohibited.

@avzaagzonunaada You don't have to believe in a religion to understand the reasons it might be more or less successful than other religions, or the positive or negative effects its core tenets might have. Of course if you're a Hindu I can see why you wouldn't want to go down that road lol

@ClassFirst2 I don’t believe in any Islam, so, not my problem what other Muslims think of their leader. So far as I am concerned, the Agha Khan foundation does incredibly good work for Nizari communities in some of the remotest & often poor parts of the world, and for that he has my respect.

Nizari Ismaelis today are remote mountain communities in the Karakoram & the Pamirs (Burusho, Shughni, Yidgha, Sarikoli, Sanglechi, &c.), & a bunch of rich Gujaratis & Sindhis who make musea. Hard to believe that this sect is what gave us the assassins of Alamūt a millennium ago.

@yasinabdelmagid If we were arguing about Hanbali fiqh this hadith would be dispositive. We are not arguing about Hanbali fiqh, we are arguing about Hanafi fiqh, and specifically about Abu Hanifa's own view. He factually held that nabidh is haram only if consumed to the point of intoxication.

Stop speaking without knowledge. “No one is intoxicated from one beer”, this already destroys your whole argument. The Prophet ﷺ said: «مَا أَسْكَرَ كَثِيرُهُ فَقَلِيلُهُ حَرَامٌ» If a substance intoxicates in large amounts, even a small amount is ḥarām. Beer is khamr. End of discussion. And stop lying on the Ḥanafī madhhab, they never permitted intoxicants. Learn before you speak.

@Bohemond5 @ThatchEffendi Great argument bro

@ClassFirst2 @ThatchEffendi And this is where I realise the further discussion is pointless. Muted.

Iberia was one of the wealthiest regions of Europe prior to the Umayyad conquest and "the Christians were primitive" is belied by the fact that the great cities of Toledo, Cordoba were built on a Roman-Visigothic foundation. Also, frankly, for all of the cultural and intellectual accomplishments of Islamic Spain, those were in the rear view mirror by the time Almohad authority collapsed.

@Bohemond5 @ThatchEffendi There was no Christian pressure to abolish slavery until the modern era lol. The Christian Spanish famously introduced slavery to the New World 800 years later because they were still practicing it.

@ClassFirst2 @ThatchEffendi Yes, fewer and fewer with time. Partly due to Christianity pressure, and partly to societal collapse - there was no infrastructure to run large scale slave economy.

@Bohemond5 @ThatchEffendi The Visigoths kept slaves, just as the Romans did well into the late empire

@ClassFirst2 @ThatchEffendi Outside late republic and early empire? Exactly, famously not a slave society.

@EugeneIpavec @ThatchEffendi The whole point is that the Islamic world was experiencing a golden age precisely at the moment Christendom was experiencing a dark age

@ThatchEffendi One of the wealthiest regions in Europe *in the 7th century*, the literal armpit of the Dark Ages

@Bohemond5 @ThatchEffendi Lol yes the Romans, famously not a slave society

@ClassFirst2 @ThatchEffendi 'Roman-Visigothic Toledo, Cordoba were like one tenth or less the population of Islamic Toledo, Cordoba' Yes, muslim do keep a lot of slaves. 'Al-Andalus was factually a cultural and economic high point for the peninsula' xD

@SpaceNatureFact @kuscuoglu344519 @pati_marins64 The Pentagon surely knew. But the political leadership in the US doesn't listen to the Pentagon, it listens to the Israelis. And the Israelis don't care how many American lives are lost in kamikaze missions into the Iranian mountains.

The Fortress of Yazd Over the past few weeks, Israel has targeted the Imam Hussein Strategic Missile Base, located south of Yazd in central Iran, one of the IRGC’s most critical facilities for long-range ballistic missiles. The bombardments have been relentless since the war began, with strikes on the 1st, 6th, and 17th, bolstered by B-52 sorties on the 19th and 22nd. Surprisingly, the base remains operational. Despite a launch failure on the 20th, the facility continues to fire. These missiles emerge from massive bunkers up to 500 meters deep. The facility is so well-compartmentalized that secondary explosions have failed to halt the launch flow. Projectiles seem to sprout from the mountain in a high-tech guerrilla operation, finding windows between persistent airstrikes. Read more: open.substack.com/pub/global21/p…

@AvdullahYousef Shiism doesn't make logical sense but it does make emotional sense. It's a religion that inspires people to never give up even in the fact of overwhelming odds.

Trying to make the ridiculous tenets of Shiism “based” because of temporal modern politics is just retarded. I don’t make the rules.

@th33min Bún mắm is where it's at

I’ve been told bun bo hue is better than pho