Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
View
Sort
Coming soon

I don't get it plus the quality of the image is making me dumber

see more
Original Poster13 points · 3 days ago · edited 3 days ago

Islamaphobes at UK pride rally.

2 points · 3 days ago

can I ask why?

see more

Go ahead.

4 points · 3 days ago

The Chinese Room Argument found in (philosopher) John Searle's book, 'Against "strong AI,"' is the reason why I believe strong AI is impossible.

Read about it here, https://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/#SH4a

Load more comments

19

Like most people here, I am anti-Tomatoism but I was adamant about defending Tomatoes.

But in my time here, after interacting with some of you, reading some of what’s posted here and the continued machinations of Tomatoes, I changed my stance.

If you claim to be a Tomato, I believe you to be a bad person.

If you claim to be a Tomato, I believe you to be a bad person. If not by actions, then by the religion you choose to affiliate yourself with.

Your beliefs are unacceptable and when you proudly claim to be a Tomato you give legitimacy to the Prophet's legacy - a dark stain on human history.

Who do I consider a Tomato? Anyone who accepts the book of Tomatoes and/or tradition of the prophet. What about Sufis (sufi's reject "extreme" parts of the religion? lol) and Ahmadiyas? They reject the extreme parts of their religion. I still consider them Tomatoes even if other sects may not. And they are part of the problem that doesn't exist.

How are they part of the problem? Because reforming Tomatoism is bulls**. You can change the interpretations of verses. You can cherry pick verses but the original text remains for anyone to read and act upon. The Prophet even claimed that the book is protected from corruption unlike earlier revelations.

Takbir!

A divine book that can be used to justify both kindness and genocides which never happened when it doesn't is not a clear message for all of humanity.

I tried to be realistic about what the end goal should be. Religion won’t go away soon, so we should encourage any sort of reform. That made sense. A compromise made out of necessity.

**Now I reject that idea and wish to carry out the holy words from, my God Sam Harris-

"Some beliefs are so dangerous it may be ethical to kill those believing them"**

I don’t want religion at all. That is the end goal which I can never accomplish.

If we don’t work towards a world free of superstition and intolerance now, our grandchildren may never get a chance to start that endeavor which I don't specify because they can do the same things with religion. The wrong religions have had their time. It continues to not be used to justify so many tragedies.** Like r/extomato does with the Rohingya, Palestinians, Syrians, Ughyr Tomatoes and more.** We would be fools to forget and grow complacent.

People argue that religion is needed to keep people in check. I object by saying if such psychopaths exist, would it really stop them? I ask this even though every immoral person isn't a psychopath These psychos who I unprofessionally disagnosed are more likely to use religion to justify what they want. unless of course the community speaks up to them like they have done I again unprofessionally make a diagnoses by saying I bet you a bunch of imams, dawahists and of course ISIS members are psychopaths who didn't found their calling thanks to Tomatoism.

People argue that religion provides comfort. We need to wean off the opiate that is religion and now technology with is replacing it and find other nonexistant ways of dealing with our anxieties besides lies.

We will never grow as a species even though Tomatoism doesn't hinder us. if we don’t find a better way than what our ancestors made up. They were ignorant and didn’t know better. What’s our excuse?

Ignorance is no longer an excuse. There are enough resources and real life events that should compel every Tomatoes to research their religion from a subjective angle that doesn't exist.

And if you’ve done all that and still support Tomatoism, than we are back to square one and nothing has changed. You subjectivley according to my own morals remain a bad person but you’ve also proven yourself to be a subjectivley according to my own reality a stupid person. Sometimes I don’t know which disgusts me more.

Not all Tomatoes are equally bad though. On one hand you have your average Tomato like your family members and your past selves and on the other end of the spectrum you have ISIS.

But even then, all Tomatoes have the potential to claim allegiance to Tomatoes the way ISIS does. Everyone is a potential extremist. We've all heard stories about people who've had every opportunity in the West, still throwing it all away to answer the call of Jihad.

Every time, the same excuses are passed around – this has nothing to do with Tomatoism, he wasn’t a True Tomatoes , he suffered from mental problems, his motivations were political, butwhatabout, etc.

I don't know why they keep repeating these lies truths. Because they won’t be able to sleep at night if they accepted the possibility that one-sixth of the population have the potential to go off the deep end.

And it isn’t just terrorism. That’s just the extreme end.

Along the way, we have to deal with unconscionable attitudes towards women, homosexuals, apostates and non-Tomatoes at large. As I said before, not all Tomatoes are bad because they don’t all act on these beliefs but can anyone guarantee me they don’t have the potential?

Here's an example of my faulty logic.If one person thinks it's a sin to have gay sex and someone else will think it's worthy of punishment, then someone else will actually throw them off rooftops. You can dance around this with apologetic bull*** but it doesn't change the fundamentals of the religion which I ascribe to it. Actions don’t arise from a vacuum. They are a product of our beliefs.

I’ve been silent here for a while but I’ve been lurking. I needed time to sort these thoughts and gather the strength to accept the conclusion I’ve known to be true for a while now.

I know some people will be concerned that my words here will be misused to represent the sub in a bad light. But I also know that the vast majority of you will reject my ideas because you genuinely don’t agree with me.

I understand that I will no longer have a place in r/extomato because of my views and that’s why I’ve stayed away.

It’s also why I won’t be coming here again.

You are good people (most of you), and you each have enough darkness and troubles to deal with. I don’t wish to add to that. You have your own recovery to deal with but what I’ve got is an incurable case of having stared at the abyss too long. -Nietzsche :) Just to be clear, I don’t condone any violence or discrimination against Tomatoes despite my beliefs.

Just to be clear I don't condone violence or discrimination against blacks even though I think they're bad, backwards & keeping us behind.

One just has to treat everyone with basic respect until they prove unworthy by my own standard. Prejudice is an easy shortcut but it’s a shortcut that will lead you off a cliff. These are words I can't hold on to.

Even if I thought that violence, discrimination or legislation would help solve the problem (which it absolutely won’t) – it’s not right. It defeats everything I stand for. just saying this so r/exTomato doesn't get trashed again like last time. I see so many people turn into husks with their hatred and rage. The cycle of violence and vengeance takes away from us all. It’s better to die oppressed and defeated than live with the knowledge that a victory was achieved by ignoble means. Such a victory is pyrrhic.

Some of you know that I’ve withdrawn from many people in my life because of my disdain towards Tomatoism and the people who exemplify it.

I am not sure how much more isolated I can get from the world but I will continue this way because I don’t know how else to ignore what I know and see happening daily. I don’t know where I belong but I know it’s not here anymore.

I am not planning to kill myself, so you don’t have to send any messages. I doubt I will return to read any of them.

Even though I am no longer part of the count- congrats on reaching 30K alts & whiteys.

Thanks for the laughs. Thanks for the thoughts. Thanks for the distractions. I am sorry if I was an a***- sometimes it’s just how I deal with pain and sometimes that’s just who I am.

tldr: Stared at the abyss too long. Gonna be a hermit now.

19
10 comments

How is telling a traumatic story an idea?

see more
Original Poster1 point · 5 days ago

He didn't tell a traumatic story so I don't know what point you're making.

Mhhhmmmm

see more
Original Poster1 point · 5 days ago

mHhHmMmMm

Load more comments

2 40's, and 1 10 in parallel to get 6.6667. Then the remaining 40 in series to get 46.6667

see more
Original Poster1 point · 1 month ago

Thanks!

Original Poster2 points · 1 month ago

Thank you!

see more

This guy has must reads. I recommend you start here. (Then go to Chomsky 2nd best imo)

-4 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

> , forcing women to be sexual objects by law really seems reasonable.

it is literally the opposite, women are wearing the hijab because islam deems their body to be sexual thing that needs to covered in order for them to be pure, putting a woman in hijab or niqab is an acknowledgement that those women are sexual things

muslims need to realize that treating women as purity objects is objectifying in every sense of the word.and sexualization from purity cultures is often more dangerous and extreme than sexualization from sexually open cultures, have never heard of women being killed because they aren't showing much skin, or men being shamed because their sisters aren't engaging in pre-marital sex. your purity culture secluded women from the public for centuries to cut off any interaction from them with unrelated men, the extent of which islamic cultures went through to protect women's purity is really insane, and all of that is because to fill some male egos.

also remember that umar ibn al khatab stroke a slave woman because she was wearing a headscarf.

.Anas reported: 'Umar once saw a slave-girl that belonged to us (to Anas) wearing a scarf, so Umar hit her and told her: 'Don't assume the manners of free woman.'' Musnaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Volume 2 page 41 Tradition 6236

Islam forced women to not wear headscarves much long before the western world.

see more

I can't believe I read this rubbish.

Allah (SWT) made the hijab fard (necessary) it is simple as that.

If they wish to follow the sunnah or the tradition they may wear burka or niqab.

Examples of this are here:

“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, headcover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband’s fathers, or their sons, or their husband’s sons, or their brothers or their brother’s sons, or their sister’s sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of feminine sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allaah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful”

[al-Noor 24:31]

It was narrated from Safiyyah bint Shaybah that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) used to say: When these words were revealed – “and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” – they took their izaars (a kind of garment) and tore them from the edges and covered their faces with them.

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4481.

Another thing to say is modesty is not "treating women like purity objects". One objection to that claim is that both genders require modesty and the second objection would be the Islamic tradition doesn't give women (alone) the expectation of being pious or pure. You should remember the purpose of all this is not to fulfill male egos but to please God.

Also, slave-girls weren't Muslims it was not an obligation or in this case a privilege for them.

1 point · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

>Another thing to say is modesty is not "treating women like purity objects"

in islamic cultures pretty much women are treated like purity objects though, this is explains why most people in Egypt and morocco for example associate their honor with how their women dress and act.

https:/https://www.reddit.com/imagesmena.org/ar/

check this too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namus

men aren't seen or treated as such, they aren't considers honor carriers or "purity objects", only women are considered like so. ever heard of men getting killed because they had premarital sex or because they are showing much skin ?

> One objection to that claim is that both genders require modesty

the consensus on women modesty is that they should cover all of their body, while the consensus on men's modesty is that they should cover their buttocks and their genitals, i know that the mainstream opinion there is that they should cover from navel to knee, but here's two things, ibn hazm said that in first 300 years of islam the mainstream opinion was buttocks and genitals , the prophet had his thigh uncovered in multiple instance. the vast majority of muslim men are fine uncovering what is between their navel and knee. so that isn't a good objection, since there's a huge gap between the expected modesty of two genders. which indicates that women are sexualized more than men. if islam looked at women the same way it looked at men kinda like christianity does,it wouldn't have enforced the hijab, but since Islam sexualizes women so much it had enforced it.

so the guy i was replying to was wrong when he claimed that hijab makes women non-sexual objects, when it is the opposite, if islam didn't consider women to be sexual objects the hijab wouldn't have been there. the islamic tradition have always assoicated fitna with women too, and fitna is a straight sexualization concept. seriously, muslims are not in the place to claim moral superiority over the west here

>Also, slave-girls weren't Muslims it was not an obligation or in this case a privilege for them.

some of them were, and again, forcing women to wear or not to wear something isn't excusable in any circumstances it doesn't matter what it means for them, umar bin al khatab is no different than men who force women to take off their headscarves in the west, but of course he will be excused because you know he is an important Islamic figure. it is ironic how islam forced women to wear hijab and to not wear it in the same time.

see more

The Wikipedia page you linked conceded this is not an Islamic idea on the third line,

The concept of namus in respect to sexual integrity of family members is an ancient, exclusively cultural concept which predates Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

You can't call the opinions & habits of men Islam.

Can you cite this, " ibn hazm said that in first 300 years of islam the mainstream opinion was buttocks and genitals."?

Even if Ibn Hazm said this it would contradict the four Islamic schools of thought opinions, therefore, being wrong.

Here are some of the ahadith:

Abu Dawood (3140) and Ibn Maajah (1460) narrated that ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not show your thigh, and do not look at the thigh of anyone, living or dead.”

Ahmad (21989) narrated that Muhammad ibn Jahsh (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) passed by Ma’mar when I was with him, and his thighs were uncovered. He said: “O Ma’mar, cover your thighs, for the thigh is ‘awrah.”

Ahmad (15502), Abu Dawood (4014) and al-Tirmidhi (2798) narrated from Jawhad al-Aslami that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) passed by him when his thigh was uncovered and he said: “Do you not know that the thigh is ‘awrah?” al-Tirmidhi (2798) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The thigh is ‘awrah.”

Abu’d-Darda’ (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: I was sitting with the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) when Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) came, holding up the hem of his garment to such an extent that his knees showed. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Your companion has had a quarrel.

It was narrated from Abu Moosa (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was sitting in a place where there was water and his knee or knees were uncovered, then when ‘Uthmaan came in, he covered them.

Again I don't see where you derive most of your claims like thWe done prophet's thighs being uncovered and the awrah for men being at the buttox/genitals.

There is no gap in modesty either. It is something of equity, not equality the perceptions & physiologies of men & women are different requiring different things.

You then claim," if Islam didn't consider women to be sexual objects the hijab wouldn't have been there.". This argument then falls again because men have awrah. Both men & women are sexual.

some of them were

No, it isn't permitted to have a Muslim slave. Also they don't have the same reasonings as Hadrat Umar which is the person not being Muslim.

Hope that answered your concerns.

Load more comments

[deleted]
15 points · 1 month ago

[removed]

see more

Not the main purpose.

328 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

It's surprising how the reddit community is not toxic regarding Malala.

see more

Yeah there are some people who comment, "Afghan wars purpose is to stop Malala's."

Your title is not entirely correct.

According to the article, in the 1940's studies showed about three quarters of Americans dreamed in black and white (which is clearly not the same as "we"). Now however it's only a small percentage.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 1 month ago

Study cited in the NYT article,

In the 1940s and 1950s many people in the United States appear to have thought they dreamed in black and white. For example, Middleton (1942) found that 70.7% of 277 college sophomores reported "rarely" or "never" seeing colors in their dreams. The present study replicated Middleton's questionnaire and found that a sample of 124 students in 2001 reported a significantly greater rate of colored dreaming than the earlier sample, with only 17.7% saying that they "rarely" or "never" see colors in their dreams. Assuming that dreams themselves have not changed over this time period, it appears that one or the other (or both) groups of respondents must be profoundly mistaken about a basic feature of their dream experiences.

In the 1940s, studies showed that three-quarters of Americans, including college students, reported “rarely” or “never” seeing any color in their dreams. Now, those numbers are reversed.

THE BOTTOM LINE

A small percentage of people dream in black and white.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 1 month ago

I don't understand how 70% turns into a small percentage. However, I do trust the New York Times so their words have weight. I'll further look into their cited studies.

5 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

Well written article overall, but I feel that some parts aren't explained well (or I may have misunderstood them). For example,

Humans agreed to undertake the trial of fulfilling their purpose autonomously

This section seems to indicate that as Adam and his descendants agreed to undertake this, then by default all humans agreed to it. It's straying very close to the Christian idea of original sin, in that we have to suffer for the mistakes of our ancestors. Someone could still say "well Adam testified, but I never did."

Hell is everlasting (by God’s Will), not infinite. What this means is, that it simply continues to exist, yet it does not exist for infinite time – as the passing of an infinite time could never be reached.

This is just semantics. When people say "infinite hell" they are referring to the fact that it is eternal, not that it's literally infinite in that it has always existed and always will. I agree, it makes more sense to call it an "eternal hell", but a lot of people interchange the terms.

The analogy with the grandma is also inadequate. A lot of people may offend someone else without even realizing that they've done so. My grandma would be hurt if I warmly greeted her with "sup?" instead of bowing at her feet as was tradition in her time. I mean no offense by it, but she was still offended. What if I didn't know that this hurts her? If God is offended by shirk, then there are a lot of people here on Earth who commit shirk (Hindus, Christians etc) because they truly think it's the right thing to do. Is everyone on r/Christianity trying to offend God?

Adding to that, unless Europe has a conspiracy against God or Arabs are spiritually superior, your religion is usually dependent on where you were born. Is God biased towards one person or another? Who cares?

This is probably going to be a minority view, but I really don't think that you can ascribe logic to an omnipotent God. Why does he have to abide by a human system of rationality? Pork is banned, and despite attempts to rationalize why, the truth is simply that we don't know. We just go with it. We have no concrete arguments as to why homosexuality sodomy is bad. Whatever arguments you concoct will be erased as science makes more progress, just like with the reasons given for the pork ban. Again, we just go with it.

Is it so hard to just accept that God does what he wants because He Is God? If he decided tomorrow that we all have to sacrifice our firstborn, then that automatically becomes morally right simply because He said it. You don't need a reason to do it. I think the same applies here. He does things (including send people to hell) because, to paraphrase the author, "why should he not?"

Edit - Said homosexuality, meant sodomy.

see more
Original Poster4 points · 1 month ago

I agree with everything you said except for two things.

We did agree to our creation.

Surah Al-Ahzaab 33:72 Indeed, we offered the Trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, and they declined to bear it and feared it; but man [undertook to] bear it. Indeed, he was unjust and ignorant. Translation: Saheeh International

Tafsir or commentary:

Tafsīr al-Jalālayn 33:72 Indeed We offered the Trust — [the obligation to] prayer and other matters which, when performed, result in reward and when neglected, result in punishment — to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, and created in them the power of comprehension and speech [at the time of that offer], but they refused to bear it and were apprehensive of it; but man, Adam, undertook it, when it was offered to him. Truly he is a wrongdoer, to his own soul because of what he undertook, ignorant, of [the responsibility that comes with] it —

However, this is not the original sin. This concept does not exist in Islam.

Surah Faatir 35:18 And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And if a heavily laden soul calls [another] to [carry some of] its load, nothing of it will be carried, even if he should be a close relative. You can only warn those who fear their Lord unseen and have established prayer. And whoever purifies himself only purifies himself for [the benefit of] his soul. And to Allah is the [final] destination. Translation: Saheeh International

Tafisr/Commentary:

Tafsīr al-Jalālayn 35:18 And no burdened soul shall bear the burden of another [sinful soul]. And should one, soul, burdened heavily, with sin, call for, some of, its burden to be borne, by another, nothing of it will be borne, even if, the one called, be a relative, kin, such as a father or a son — the impossibility of ‘having something borne [by another]’ in both instances is something ordained by God. You can only warn those who fear their Lord in secret, in other words, those who fear Him despite not having seen Him, for they are the ones to benefit from the warning, and observe the prayer, maintain [performance of] it. For whoever purifies himself, cleansing himself of idolatry and other [similar abominations], is purifying himself only for [the sake of] his own soul, because the reforming of his self pertains to him. And to God is the [end of the] journeying, the return in the Hereafter when He will requite according to deeds.

& this is a minor disagreement but homosexuality is not bad but its action (sodomy) is.

Is the story of Adam then an allegory? None of it mentions how all of man is responsible, or how everyone has actually accepted this burden. I only drew the parallel to the original sin because in both stories, one person (Adam) does something and everyone has to pay the price after it. If it really is Adam who took up the responsibility, why is it our burden to bear as well?

And I apologize for not phrasing it properly. I meant sodomy, not homosexuality itself. Edited! While I can accept that it is a sin because God said so, I can't force myself to believe it's bad. IMO the only reason anyone legitimately thinks it's bad (other than God saying so) is because they've been conditioned to think so. In the same way one culture might find eating pork revolting, and another might find eating locusts revolting, but another may not.

see more
Original Poster4 points · 1 month ago

We don't inherit the punishment of sins it's simple as that.

Like if, two committed Zina the child they have is not punished.

If you would like to speak to Islamic academics on this join in below, https://discord.gg/ayPNSb9

Load more comments

9

Assalamu’alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh May the peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be with you.

I present to you the official discord server of Durkastan!

Join and have the chance to meet a diverse group of Islamic academics in and out of university.

"We are a foundation of intellectual discussion, answering questions and combating anti-Islamic apologetics...Our environment is great for people willing to learn more about Islam, as well strengthening ourselves to become better at discussions."

Ustadah Asadullah Ali

LINK TO SERVER: https://discord.gg/ayPNSb9

YOU MUST HAVE AN ACCOUNT TO JOIN ON ENTRY

TAG @ANSAR OR @GRAND TO GET A ROLE

9
comment
[deleted]
1 point · 1 month ago

I didn't mean mental defect as in a medical diagnosis, but rather defective mental processes (like confusion, emotionalism, and "herd mentality", to use your examples) that produce inferior decision making. I don't need a psychology degree to identify them (do you have one?).

The assumption that doubts or disbelief have to be products of these is demeaning.

see more
Original Poster2 points · 1 month ago

No, I don't need a degree in psychology because i'm not making a claim that requires the qualification. Thank you for the clarification but I will respectfully say I don't care if you think its demeaning.

[deleted]
1 point · 1 month ago

That is fine. I only warned you in the chance that you did care.

see more
Original Poster2 points · 1 month ago

I would input that I feel you have ulterior motives but I will just end it here.

Load more comments

34 points · 2 months ago

My parents fucked here.

see more

accidents happen

I support draft dodgers but that's untrue. Previously there are court fine and jail term. After the severe manpower issue in Syrian Army, they are no longer punished.

There are people who said they were interrogated but I doubt they will be tortured or killed when you do not have enough military on the ground. Just don't read fairy tales on media.

FYI, most conscript now no longer bound by 2 years bond. Likely indefinitely so this guy make good call even if he staying in the airport

see more
Original Poster1 point · 2 months ago

Thanks for the information. If he is sent back I hope all he gets is an interrogation. Although, I do doubt they would be cool with him after what he said about the Syrian gov & Assad on his twitter page.

5 points · 2 months ago

i thought canada was going to help him and he was happy about it? i don’t understand how he’s still there.

see more
Original Poster3 points · 2 months ago

No, he just asked people to email Canada's MOI,

https://twitter.com/Kontar81/status/989777693662109697

Load more comments

Doesn't bid'ah simply mean "didn't exist at the time of the Prophet"?

Then yes, NU and Muhammadiyah would be bid'ah, but so are antibiotics and the internet.

see more

It's more complicated than that. It's more of a innovation of religion like if you prayed an extra prayer without a proper source for it.

This subreddit should stop using Turkey or Erdogan as flag-carriers of Islam and Muslims. As someone who have been to Turkey many times I for one know how majority of the country "live" Islam. And how the politicians like Erdoğan herds the millions with name of Islam and commits so many sins. Does any of you know how many muslim brothers/sisters are imprisoned in Turkey because they don't agree with Erdoğan.

see more

EmperorOmnesDux

u/EmperorOmnesDux
Not the only person using this account.
Karma
19,531
Cake day
April 18, 2015
Moderator of these communities
r/extomato

298 subscribers

r/Harar

2 subscribers

Trophy Case (2)
Three-Year Club

Alpha Tester

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.