Saad Alsubaie

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

@sas495920121 @NawafOsaimi @leen4one خل البهايم على جنب. انت لو اشوفك تمشي وسط الخط علقت البوري عليك لين تذلف.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

This image is misleading. It lists verses and hadith without context and claims they allow deception. Let’s actually read them properly:

Qur’an 16:106
“Except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith…”

➡️ Context: This is about coercion under threat of death, not lying freely. It permits outward words only to save your life — a universal human principle.

Qur’an 3:28
“Let not believers take disbelievers as allies instead of believers… except when taking precaution against them…”

➡️ Context: This is about self-protection in hostile environments, not deception as a general rule.

Qur’an 9:3
A declaration ending treaties with hostile tribes who repeatedly broke agreements.

➡️ Context: war-time political announcement, not about lying or deception.

Qur’an 2:225
“Allah will not call you to account for what is unintentional in your oaths…”

➡️ Context: This clarifies unintentional speech, not permission to lie.

Qur’an 3:54
“They planned, and Allah planned…”

➡️ enemies plotted → God outmaneuvered them. means countering plots, not deceit. Even in English we say “counter-strategy.”

Hadith:

Bukhari (War deception)
“War is deception.”

➡️ Context: This is about military strategy, exactly like every army in history uses tactics and deception in war.

Bukhari (Reconciliation)
Permits limited wording to reconcile between people.

➡️ Context: This is about ending conflict, not lying for advantage. (Two people are arguing.
You say: “He didn’t mean it that way.” Not lying, making peace.)

Bukhari (Spouses)
Allows soft speech between spouses.

➡️ Context: emotional harmony, not deception. (Telling your spouse “you look good” to avoid hurting them. Not deception, kindness.)

🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨

I’ve already clarified every text and its context.

If you still ignore that and choose the extreme interpretation.
that says more about your approach than about Islam.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

Negative clips spread more than positive ones, especially where hostile content is amplified.

Even when responses exist, you won’t see them, moderation isn’t promoted, extremism is.

Like many people ignore what I said, but amplify fringe tweets.

That doesn’t define Islam, it defines your feed.

If you want truth, seek it. It won’t reach you while you ignore it.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

@earthinspace I didn’t misquote you, I summarized it.

“force exists” = summarizing my point: every society uses force (war, self-defense, law enforcement)

“remove force entirely” = summarizing your position: “Eliminate the option to kill us…”

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

You’re not critiquing Islam, you’re holding it to a standard no system on earth meets.

Every society uses force (war, self-defense, law enforcement).
So the issue isn’t “force exists” it’s how it’s regulated.

The Quran doesn’t unleash violence, it restricts it:
No aggression. No compulsion. Justice even with enemies.

So when you say “remove force entirely,”
you’re not making a moral argument
you’re describing a world that has never existed.

And judging a system for not matching a fantasy isn’t analysis, it’s avoidance.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

You’re not making an argument, you’re projecting modern assumptions onto a completely different historical context.

First, using terms like “rape” here is presentism, imposing modern standards on a 7th-century society where life expectancy was ~35–40 and early marriage was a global norm across Roman, Jewish, and Semitic cultures.

Second:
Maturity was not defined by a fixed number. It was defined by puberty and functional capability, and that standard varies across time, environment, and life conditions.

A 9-year old in a pre-modern society, with different biology, responsibilities, and life structure is not equivalent to a 9-year old today.
Treating them as identical is not analysis, it’s historical illiteracy.

Third:
Islamic law distinguishes clearly between contract and consummation, and conditions marriage on maturity and absence of harm, not an arbitrary age.

Fourth:
Islamic history records cases where harm against minors was punished, directly contradicting your narrative.

Finally:
You admit these norms existed globally, yet isolate one case and moralize it.

That’s not a universal standard,
that’s selective outrage.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

Let’s be precise.

No one denies that slavery existed historically, it existed in every civilization.
The real question is: how was it treated and regulated?

In Islamic wartime law, there was a clear sequence:
•Peace and coexistence first
•Then agreements (like jizya for protection and exemption from military duty)
•War only if conflict continues

If war reaches its end, societies historically had two outcomes:
kill, or spare under captivity.

Islam did not invent this reality, it restricted and humanized it:
•Encouraged freeing captives
•Integrated them into society
•Made manumission a virtue and expiation

So the real question is simple:
Which is harsher, killing prisoners, or sparing them under regulated captivity?

Compared to systems where mass killing was common,
Islamic law moved toward restraint and gradual reduction of slavery, not expansion.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

Let’s slow this down. (emojis to carry it.)

You just cited sources that prove my point, not yours.

Delaware wasn’t “7 permanently” — your own source shows:
•1871–1889: 7 (temporary legal loophole)
•1889: raised to 15
•By 1960: 18

So what exactly are you proving here? That your system experimented with shockingly low ages… then fixed it later?

And your “better system”?
Marriage at 12, but intercourse illegal until 13 meaning:
You legally recognized a child as a wife, then needed criminal law to stop men from touching her.

That’s not moral superiority, that’s internal contradiction.

Meanwhile, you accuse Islam of having “no system,” while ignoring that it operates on maturity (rushd), not arbitrary numbers that keep changing every century.

And here’s the real issue:
You selectively pick the lowest numbers when attacking Islam,
but suddenly become “contextual and nuanced” when it’s your own history.

That’s not consistency, that’s bias.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

So let me get this straight…

Your system allowed marriage at 12,
called girls “legally ready,”
but then had to create a second law to stop men from touching them until 13… or they’d be punished like criminals?

And you think that’s a moral high ground? 😄

You didn’t solve the problem, you legalized it first, then tried to contain it.

Meanwhile, you mock a system that doesn’t fixate on a number,
but requires actual maturity (rushd).

And let’s be honest:
you’re not applying a consistent standard, you’re defending your history while attacking mine.

That’s not analysis. That’s damage control.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

So now it’s not 3… it’s 10? 12? 14? or 20?
Thanks; you just proved my point. 😂

There’s no age in Genesis, only conflicting guesses.
And you’re clearly just picking the number that fits your argument and ignoring the rest.

Funny how when it’s Aisha, suddenly one number is treated as absolute…
but when it’s Rebekah, it’s a buffet of options.

That’s not consistency. That’s selective outrage.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

I’m not asking you to believe me, but don’t believe others just because they sound confident or have followers.

Truth isn’t measured by voices, but by evidence.

The question isn’t: who said it?
It’s: what’s the standard?

In Islam: the Quran, authentic teachings (Hadith)
not random clips, even if they quote scripture.

Quoting a text ≠ understanding it.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

I don’t know this person, and he doesn’t represent Islam.

Honestly, anyone can pull random clips from any religion or ideology and find extreme views, that’s not a standard for truth.

Religion is defined by its core texts, not viral videos.
The Quran is clear: no compulsion (2:256) and kindness to non-hostiles (60:8).

What’s in that video:
Not Quran, Not binding hadith, Just selective human opinion

Using random clips to define a religion isn’t analysis, it’s cherry-picking.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

@RuffJustus @JohnCleese You keep repeating claims without evidence while ignoring the actual verses and context that were already presented and refuted your argument.

At this point, you’re not engaging with the evidence, you’re just repeating assertions after your previous ones failed.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

What’s the punishment for treason in the U.S. military?
It can reach the death penalty.

Is that because they oppose freedom of belief? No.
Because treason during conflict is an existential threat.

The Quran, however, clearly states:
“There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256)
and promotes justice and kindness: (60:8)

What you’re referring to in some legal discussions relates to political/security contexts, defection or rebellion during conflict not mere personal belief.

You’re confusing freedom of belief (text) with political treason (historical context).

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

This term doesn’t exist in the Quran or authentic Hadith.
So why abandon the primary texts and rely on later human classifications?

Your Quran-based claims were already addressed once they failed, you shifted to something outside the Quran and Hadith.
That alone shows your original argument didn’t hold.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

@Gregory7057 @MrBobDobalinaNZ @JohnCleese Being on YouTube doesn’t make someone wrong, but it also doesn’t make them right.

Expertise is measured by evidence and consistency with primary sources, not views or platform.

If someone’s claim contradicts the Quran, then the issue isn’t where they speak, it’s what they say.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

@Gregory7057 @JohnCleese If you read the attached post with neutrality rather than prejudice, the matter becomes unmistakably clear.
Read it attentively, and you’ll see that the “evidence” they keep repeating is built on verses cut away from their proper context.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

you’re going to judge a text, at least judge it in context not by isolated quotes.
Here’s what the Quran actually says.

Wars exist in every civilization. The question is: what rules does a text set in war?

The Quran doesn’t promote indiscriminate violence it restricts it:

2:190 - Fight those who fight you, but do not transgress (clear limit; no aggression).

2:256 - No compulsion in religion (no forced belief).

9:6 - Protect and escort to safety anyone who seeks asylum even if an enemy.

60:8 - Be just and kind to those who do not fight you.

The verses often quoted are taken out of context:

9:5 (“kill them wherever you find them”) revealed in a specific war after treaty violations; the same passage exempts those who keep treaties (9:4) and commands protection for asylum seekers (9:6).

8:12 / 47:4 - battlefield directives during active combat, not rules for civilians or peacetime.

5:32 - whoever kills a soul unjustly…it is as if he killed all mankind (strongest moral prohibition).

If you read any scripture without context, it will sound extreme.
Consistency matters: the Old Testament contains explicit total war passages (e.g., Deut 20:16–18; Josh 6:21; 1 Sam 15:3), yet no one defines Christianity today by them because context is applied.

The Quran sets limits to reduce harm in war and affirms freedom of belief. Calling it a “book of killing” is selective reading, not analysis.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

The claim of a “permanent war because of religion” is inaccurate.

Historically, wars were driven by:
politics, power, resources, and expansion, not just belief.

•WWI & WWII = tens of millions killed
•Vietnam War = millions
•American Civil War = hundreds of thousands
•Russia–Ukraine war

Were these about religion? No.

War is a human phenomenon, not a religious one.
And the Quran restricts fighting, it doesn’t promote it.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

you’re going to judge a text, at least judge it in context not by isolated quotes.
Here’s what the Quran actually says.

Wars exist in every civilization. The question is: what rules does a text set in war?

The Quran doesn’t promote indiscriminate violence it restricts it:

2:190 - Fight those who fight you, but do not transgress (clear limit; no aggression).

2:256 - No compulsion in religion (no forced belief).

9:6 - Protect and escort to safety anyone who seeks asylum even if an enemy.

60:8 - Be just and kind to those who do not fight you.

The verses often quoted are taken out of context:

9:5 (“kill them wherever you find them”) revealed in a specific war after treaty violations; the same passage exempts those who keep treaties (9:4) and commands protection for asylum seekers (9:6).

8:12 / 47:4 - battlefield directives during active combat, not rules for civilians or peacetime.

5:32 - whoever kills a soul unjustly…it is as if he killed all mankind (strongest moral prohibition).

If you read any scripture without context, it will sound extreme.
Consistency matters: the Old Testament contains explicit total war passages (e.g., Deut 20:16–18; Josh 6:21; 1 Sam 15:3), yet no one defines Christianity today by them because context is applied.

The Quran sets limits to reduce harm in war and affirms freedom of belief. Calling it a “book of killing” is selective reading, not analysis.

[Saad Alsubaie @SAADBANII]

You’re conflating text, translation, and interpretation. Here’s the clarification:

1) “immature”
This is not in the Quran, it’s translator commentary explaining a possible meaning.
The verse only says: “those who have not menstruated.”

2) “O Messenger of Allah…”
This also not in Quran verse or Hadith. It appears in tafsir as context (occasion of revelation).

But context ≠ legislation.
It does not create a rule.

3) Tafsir (Ibn Abbas, Jalalayn, Ibn Kathir)
These are respected interpretations, not the text itself.
They explain the verse within its historical setting, but they do not turn it into a marriage law.

🔔The key point:

Quran 65:4 is about iddah (waiting period after divorce), not marriage rules.

👉 This is regulation, not endorsement.
Like theft laws or medical guidelines, they don’t permit harm, they manage situations if they occur.

🔔 Governing principle:

Quran 4:6 — Rushd (maturity)
= sound judgment, mental readiness, capacity

You took:
🛎️ a translation note → treated it as Quran
🛎️ contextual tafsir → treated it as law

Then argued against something the text itself does not state.