ShubuhatArchive

Click the link to join the best Contra-Islam Discord Library:

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@Kiprap346 @WESTBEAST171171 @MakiTheSalafi Chester has accused me of lying again, but curiously I am unable to post a reply to him now...

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@Kiprap346 @WESTBEAST171171 @MakiTheSalafi I am not just lying lmao, this is the mu'tamid of the Hanbalis and Shafi'is. Imam al-Qurtubi explicitly says you can whip "women of lower classes". And the 10 lashes is not for Hudud, the lowest number of lashes in Hudud is 80.

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@Interstellar_HG @ceruleannmist If there is law then we do not need the family to intervene to prevent domestic abuse, the law can do it. If the woman hesitates to report to the law, she probably wants to protect her husband in which case she wouldn't tell her family about it too.

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@UncYoda Are you a Quranist? If no, then these are all lies. If you are, then no one cares about you.

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@Kiprap346 @MakiTheSalafi The reason was impotency. And? I already said the main issue there was the divorce. But that doesn't change the fact that Aisha explicitly informed Muhammad about the beating and marks, yet Muhammad did not condemn it. What the "main purpose" was is irrelevent to this lmao.

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@Kiprap346 @WESTBEAST171171 @MakiTheSalafi And don't run from the argument. Why did he not condemn the man for beating his wife?

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@Kiprap346 @WESTBEAST171171 @MakiTheSalafi The hadith you are referencing uses the phrase "ghayr mubarrih" in arabic, meaning non severe. This is ambigious, hence why most schools of fiqh (Mu'tamid of Hanbalis and Shafiis, some Malikis) allowed up to 10 lashes in the beating. Umar also allowed this. Try again.

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@MakiTheSalafi Yes, the authentic narrations from Umar are worse! He allowed and ordered a man to flog his wife for Nushuz. See:

https://t.co/tTTm6iWeo6

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@Kiprap346 @WESTBEAST171171 @MakiTheSalafi Key word, "first". He didn't just address the divorce thing first, he ONLY addressed the divorce thing. He doesn't address the beating and condemn it, meaning it is permissible to him.

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@Kiprap346 @WESTBEAST171171 @MakiTheSalafi It doesn't matter whether it's the main complaint or not. If Muhammad was made aware regarding something and he does not condemn it, that thing is permissible. This is a basic principle in fiqh.

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@beet_kon Umar b. al-Khattab when he forbids Abu Musa al-Ash'ari from keeping a christian scribe:

"I do not honor them when Allah has humiliated them, nor do I give them dignity when Allah has abased them, nor do I bring them near when Allah has distanced them."

https://t.co/iRIGOuvFqX

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@IbnJalid Hello! I really like the work you are doing. I would really appreciate it if you can join my contra-Islam library server. We have tons of sources and knowledgeable members, and would love to have you there!

https://t.co/eR4Niql2lY

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@Thoughtful1_ Are you dumb, go to r/atheism and you will them hating almost exclusively on Christianity. There is a much longer tradition of hate on christianity than there has been for Islam. Even Western Liberals still defend Islam, something never done for Christianity.

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@SeerahDawah Paul's views are an evidence of what Christians held and not pagans, Ali Tabari's works can be evidence of a view Muslims hold, not as a view that Christians hold. Did you really think this was a good argument? 2/2

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@SeerahDawah 1) I am not a Christian. 2) We shouldn't use Paul's letters as any slam dunk argument against pagans and assume he was unbiased or something, he was a christian. His letters can be used in the same way other christian works can. Just like how 1/2

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@sssnikina @ArchonAvalon

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@sssnikina @ArchonAvalon

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@sssnikina @ArchonAvalon and not all "innately wrong things" are supposed to be equal. I am sure we agree that both molesting and sexually penetrating babies is innately wrong, but they are different levels of wrong (penetration is even worse).

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@sssnikina @ArchonAvalon How do you know it is "innately wrong"? Like I do agree, but I don't see how we can reach that conclusion while also thinking its right to oppress one gender. To me, both are innately wrong. Besides, Islam allows this.

https://t.co/BASnCIpNLS

[ShubuhatArchive @ShubuhatArchive]

@sssnikina @ArchonAvalon If a religion, hypothetically, would order people to molest babies, would this alone not be a good enough reason to reject it? Or will you say "Well, um, you're just saying it doesn't fit YOUR way or ideas or living"?