I honestly don’t understand why you’re being downvoted. Book burning is probably one of the worst steps you can take towards being intolerant without directly harming people. There had to be so many more options that could’ve been taken that would’ve de-escalated the situation in a way that didn’t involve destruction.
I think it’s the fact that true tolerance would allow the burning of any book. Not all copies, not banning it from circulation, but the burning of an individual symbol as a means of expressing an idea is perfectly fine in most Americans’ view. I share that view, I understand the nuance of the situation at hand, I’m aware the quaran is a holy book and that it sends a strong message.
But so does burning the American flag, as a symbol, to show that America’s ideals and values are dead or do not apply for the people doing the burning. American flag burning was done with the intent to express that the symbol of freedom and equality that it was pushed as was not at all representative of the America those people were experiencing. America has a problem with nationalism, so much so they tossed “under god” in a “non-mandatory” (socially reinforced) pledge of allegiance you say every day before school starts all the way until you graduate. You can imagine burning the flag pissed those nationalists off too, but their vitriol and frustration is useless and unwarranted.
If you say the culture of Islam, or the culture of the people who see that book as their most holy symbol and use it to justify violence, is unwelcome in your nation, as an individual, that’s completely fine to me. I don’t love the blanket statement, but I do love that you can express it without fear of retaliation from your government and with the knowledge that you are as safe expressing that belief as you are expressing one more widely agreed upon.
If I disagree with you, I should debate you, i should seek to educate you, or be louder than you with my actions and words. That’s not the way of every place in the world, but it is the way of any civilized people. Any who condone violence in response, even provoked violence, are closer to animals than their fellow man.
I want to agree with you but I can’t. The world can’t run by true tolerance; at least not in this day and age. There are too many beliefs, cultures, and ideas that are being eroded away by people that spout hatred. Why? Just because they can? Just because they have the right?
If anything, the closest we can be is intolerant of the intolerant. The people that burned the books were an “anti-Islam activist group”. This sounds exactly like other hate groups like the proud boys, westboro baptist Church, the KKK, the EFF, Islamic extremists… These aren’t people that are celebrating their free speech. They are people that are practicing legal hostility as a tool to oppress others. I’d say hate speech is a good line to draw when allowing people to have public demonstrations.
Is it freedom of speech to deliberately provoke an entire religion just because it is your “right”?
Yes. That is literally the entire premise: the right to say offensive things. The reason this is important is that everything we say is offensive to someone. If we operated under the principle that we may never offend anyone else, we would all have to be silent, all the time. Free speech is the basis for science and democracy, where saying things which offend people is a requirement. We must always be free to challenge the beliefs and values of others, or we're no better than theocratic dictatorships.
You can’t go into an airport and shout “bomb” or use a bullhorn in a residential area at 3 AM without someone calling the cops on you and being detained. You can verbally harass someone to the point of being abusive or lie about someone to defame them but you can face repercussions for it. There’s a lot of lines that intersect with freedom of speech. Just because I’m drawing one at hate speech doesn’t mean I’m against freedom of speech.
Burning the American flag is a different ordeal. When you invade their country in the name of “freedom” don’t expect love and rose.
Imagine the reverse, Iraq invading the US over fake claims of “chemical weapons” and imposing their political regime and destroying your whole way of life, imposing the Shariah Law (just like the US imposed their view of freedom). Would you still hold the same views? I think not.
Its not like burning the quran is part of everyday life in society. More like they deliberate do it because they know its offensive for muslims, so its an obvious provocation disguised as freedom of expression. Im atheist btw and i despise religion in general, but sad to see reason being downvoted. Sorry i can’t back you up on the comment sections, i cant afford to be judged right now.
Thank you, but that’s a lot of reading for a simple question.
Statistical analysis was by χ2 test; a p value of less than 0.05 was assumed to correlate with a significant difference in rates of injury.
Oh yes it’s all clear to me now.
I know it used to be like that before air bags and safety belts, because the steering wheel takes some of the blow in frontal collisions. But such dramatic difference I suspected she might have made the collision worse for the passengers on purpose.
Conclusions: Front seat passengers are at increased risk of injury relative to drivers in actual road traffic accidents as recorded in the STAG database. This contradicts crash test data, which suggest drivers are less well protected than front seat passengers in laboratory conditions.
Yes but that could for instance be due to traffic coming from the passenger side that the driver is less likely to see in time. That would be irrelevant to this case.
The p value is effectively the % chance something happened by coincidence, and not because of a real effect. Like flipping a coin and getting the same side several times in a row. P value is an assessment of that likelihood. Less than .05 means a less than 5% chance of that. I don’t know what the other bit is, except it was likely a method of statistical analysis.
It’s a way of saying that the results they found were very unlikely to be due to chance.
I’m a fan of under sink filters. Dead simple to install and replace the filter. I never trusted those dispensers because many of them are just local tap water.
Why? PFAS is pretty large, and is readily removed by activated carbon, particularly GAC (Granular Activated Carbon), Ion Exchange Resin, and Reverse Osmosis. Multistage RO filters are "Dead simple to install and replace". Do you have any reason, or is doubting just a way of life for you? FWIW, I have RO filtration for my drinking and cooking water. You might want to consider it.
It’s spring water from sparkletts. I made sure not to get just filtered tap water. Unless they are flat out lying about what is in the bottles (not saying it’s even a far stretch, but I can’t do any more due diligence)
Got a big water pitcher/filter I keep in the fridge. Fill it maybe once a day. Now my water is filtered and cold. under sink is probably better quality filter, though.
Depends on the filters I’d think. A good pitcher filter can work great and there are probably under sink filters that aren’t that great. Doesn’t necessarily mean they’re better or worse. That said, there are some pretty nice under sink filtration systems.
The point is the water stays clear (i.e. does not turn brown within a month) not because of chemicals but because it’s been sterilized (and then put in a sealed bottle). If it sterilization didn’t work, distilled water would have some serious issues.
The water stays clean because it is free of bacteria (and also potentially free of the nutrients bacteria need to grow) … unlike well water which is often pulling from shallow wells which are not close to sterile.
Sparkletts has a filter option which iirc they call primo and a spring water option. I get the spring water, so unless they are flat out lying, no it’s not in my case.
Underground aquifers are definitely used as the tap water source in some areas.
The main difference between spring water and tap, is likely that your tap has fluoride and chlorine to A) help with dental health and B) keep the water safe if there’s some kind of contamination on its way to your home.
If you own your home or can install one… I highly recommend just installing a reverse osmosis system for your drinking water. It needs annual service, but it’s a heck of a lot easier and cheaper than buying all your drinking water in bottles.
I rent so I’m stuck with that I’ve got. As I’ve said, I can’t do anymore due diligence here.
I've also had to switch water companies 4 or 5 times now because nestle keeps buying up the little local companies. I also use stainless or glass bottles for drinking out of.
Nestle claims they still used the same spring as the last company (which had the best tasting water) but as soon as nestle took over it tasted exactly like the rest of the arrowhead shit. Plus the service went to hell. So I switched to sparkletts.
Okay. Just as a friendly option you possibly haven’t considered, I used ZeroWater for a while before I bought a home and could install a reverse osmosis system; it might be a good value for you, and it does a really good job of cleaning up tap.
Not OP, but basically tap water, depending on where it comes from, may have more or less calcium in it. If you’re used to drinking high calcium water, you might not be drinking lots of milk or eating much cheese. Shifting to purified water would remove said calcium from the diet and leave you at a slight deficit. Incorporate some other source of minerals into your diet.
Same goes for other things you would get from water like sodium (though not a concern if your diet is high enough in sodium), magnesium even if you are blessed with a source of mineral water.
The human body uses these ions in way more ways than just say… calcium for bones. Calcium is important for example for proper muscle function (including the heart muscle), as are magnesium, sodium and potassium - that’s why you feel like crap when hungover - drinking too much caused you to eliminate too much water. And the kidneys cannot eliminate just pure water, they do so by using some of the aforementioned ions, and since alcohol forces elimination of water from the body, the kidneys start throwing out whatever they can to get the water out too, starting with sodium and potassium. That’s why salty snacks taste so good with alcohol and bananas are recommended for hangovers.
But I digress.
TL;DR - Keep your ions in balance, folks - RO or distilled water no longer contain sodium, calcium, potassium and other such goodies. Get them somewhere else.
I tend to drink mostly to water currently, but I make a point to take a daily multivitamin, so hopefully that will help make up for the lack of minerals in my water.
Exactly. One thing I’ve learned from areas with unsafe drinking water is the beauty of stores dedicated to providing purified water (delivery an added bonus). Going back to the US and drinking “safe” tap water has always been pretty gross after that, even in houses with some filtration systems.
A home-based RO system would be nice, but I’ve always wondered if the ones people usually get (<$500) can compete with the quality of the commercial suppliers/stores that you typically see in other countries. Likewise for the small fill stations common on the outside of US grocery stores. Are all these systems truly of similar quality? I have a hard time trusting those tiny little under-sink setups and the unattended outdoor water fills.
After having one of those undersink systems, I can say they work, the water is very pure coming out, only issue being that it’s basically pure water - no minerals, no anything - some issues there with actual hydration since drinking pure water can kill you - look up hyponatremia.
edit: might not be the case - see reply
The principle is the same as for the more expensive systems, what you don’t get is
potentially an UV inline lamp to sanitize stuff
a pump to increase the pressure and increase efficiency/speed
maybe a storage tank (some cheaper models have like a 1-2 gallon storage tank)
not sure about this one but more expensive membranes might have a better removal rating - mine said 95% I think
If you have around 45 psi of water pressure on your tap, it’s good enough, but don’t expect to be bathing in the stuff, it takes quite a long time to get usable quantities and I think you get 1L RO water to 4-5 L ‘waste’ water. Higher pressure - higher efficiency and speed but check the pressures the membrane is rated for. Also if your water is chlorinated you need some activated charcoal pre-filters because chlorine harms the membrane.
Maintenance should also be done regularly to change prefilters once every 3 months and the membrane once every 9-12 months. And it can get slightly messy on cheaper models.
ACUTE effects of drinking distilled water
The idea behind the myth that distilled water is harmful is that its low osmolality ("tonicity") could dangerously decrease the blood osmolality, which is normally: 285-295 mmol/kg. But distilled water has only slightly lower osmolality (0 mmol/kg) than tap water (~3 mmol/kg) (SGSM.ch, Table 2), so if drinking appropriate amounts of tap water does not significantly lower blood osmolality, distilled water also shouldn't.
The difference between tap and 100% pure water is so slight that it'll never cause hyponatremia. What WILL cause hyponatremia is drinking way, WAY too much water in a short span of time. That'll dilute your blood (hyponatremia) from ions that you need as your kidneys desperately try to get rid of all the water. This is entirely mitigated by eating foods around the same time that are not entirely deficient in minerals like salt (pretty much all foods).
I’m imagine it depends who the service company for the filling machine is. Our delivery is from sparkeletts, and I made sure to get the spring water, not the filtered water.
I agree. ”It depends” seems like the right answer to me.
Having access to clean, tested spring water seems ideal. You’re a lucky one!
But for areas dealing with contaminated water (whether it’s PFAS, lead pipes like Flint Michigan, or literal shit and commercial chemical dumping from areas with lackluster water treatment, mostly outside the US) then “it depends” seems the right answer.
What’s the RO membrane rating? Does the system have UV? Charcoal? Remineralization? And do they perform the necessary maintenance? Seems like these are the critical factors about the system and might be found in someone’s home, might be at the stores, but it depends!
I lived the majority of ky adult life with a roommate who kept a 100 gallon salt water coral aquarium for almost a decade. One of the most expensive, difficult, time demanding hobbies I’ve ever seen. He couldn’t afford to replace the 20 or so gallon that needed to be replaced every couple weeks to keep the salinity and other chemical levels stable, so we had one of those under the sink RO filters. It always tasted great unless he forgot to change the filters. I worked at a Starbucks for quite a while and they basically just have a larger version of that which is changed out whenever the sensors ping their maintenance hq. Water there tasted the same.
Plastic bottled water to me is one of the ultimate fuck yous to the planet’s ecosystem that most people could easily stop today. It’s telling that the consumable plastic market is primarily owned by the oil companies, hell it’s one of the many products that can be developed from the refinery process. Short answer is get a metal thermos or canteen and refill it with RO or some other filtered water, get one of those Brita pitchers if you can’t or won’t install an RO, and cut back on your plastic containers as much as you feasibly can.
My thoughts are more centered on true purity and safety, but it’s usually a good sign if it at least tastes better! As we learn more about water contamination, it seems like a well-designed and well-maintained RO system is a good idea for people who want to help protect their health.
Single-use plastic water bottles are basically a crime against humanity, especially when used frivolously (drinking bottles filled with tap water of the same quality that comes out of the faucet). But the reusable 5-gallon jugs are a different category, in my opinion. In many places, these large plastic containers are by far the most popular lifeline to safe drinking water. Of course I’d prefer metal or glass, but the logistical challenges and availability make them a problem.
Agree with most everything you said, except the Brita part… Those things are kind of a joke, lookup ZeroWater. IMO it’s the best RO alternative you can get (it tests better than RO too in terms of TDS … but it’s way more of a hassle and a few TDS aren’t really an issue).
Yeah, no, you’re just paying to drink tap water and making a shitty company like Nestle rich in the process in addition to creating more waste.
Do yourself a favor and get a nice stainless steel or glass waterbottle along with a good filter or better yet, purifier. They won’t get rid of everything but they reduce a lot of stuff you don’t want to drink (like lead) and taste better than tap water.
If these drugs help people then fantastic, but I find it infuriating how little press the dangers of sugar gets.
We are finally waking up to the fact that fat in foods was never the cause of people getting fat. Terrible studies decades ago created a whole generation that shunned (or at least tried to shun) fatty foods, but never looked at the danger that sugar and carbs are to our health. Billions were wasted on chemicals and drugs that reduced the fat in processed foods that ultimately did very little in helping folks lose weight. Sugar, which is seemingly in everything we eat, on the other hand, has rarely been accused to being the cause for people’s weight problems. At least until fairly recently. Now the tide is turning and there are certain diets (such as keto) which finally show that cutting carbs and sugar can get results.
If these new drugs listed in the article can produce similar or better results with little consequences then fantastic. But sometimes cutting something out, it better than adding more drugs into one’s diet.
Yes, but nutrition has always been a battlefield and will continue to be one, because it is the contact point between health, personal choice, belief, economics, marketing, self-control, there are always new fad diets and controversies that get pumped by tension between researchers and manufacturers e.g. fat, sugar, gluten, vitamins, antioxidants, wheat, aspartame, salt, cholesterol in eggs, hydrogenated fat, and this will go on.
About the personal part, I’ve got a very good friend who is a super grounded, mild-manered and knowledgeable retired schoolteacher who turns crazy when anyone mentions nutrition and diets, not because she hates the concept, but because she has this set of rules to combine foods to stay healthy, like it’s her religion. She’s also clearly overweight 😑. It’s about the need/illusion of self-control and the industry taking advantage of that to sell shit.
No, that’s what’s so surprising. She seems to be extremely rational, empathetic and understanding until you casually mention the word “diet”, then all hell breaks loose about “matching foods or else they rot in your stomach to produce infection and…wa wa wo wa wa wo wa …” :shrug:
This is what happens when people have just enough knowledge (especially scientific knowledge) to be dangerous but not enough to actually fully understand what they are talking about. Like they watched a couple of YT videos or read a couple of articles (but not research papers) and now think they know everything about a topic.
but I find it infuriating how little press the dangers of sugar gets.
I think this there is part of the problem though. Even when we accept that the last thing that was bad for you, isn’t actually as bad for you as we thought, we fail to learn the lesson in favour of pouncing on the next food that’s bad for you.
Moderation is the name of the game. And I don’t even really mean in terms of how much you eat, though obviously that matters. But more so in terms of what and how much, as a combination.
Like… the amount of sugar in commercial bread is nuts and really isn’t required, but it’s being added in the process because lollies sell better, so to speak. But you could comfortably remove most, if not all of it, and still have perfectly delicious bread.
So, don’t cut stuff out, but do think about how and how much you use.
Well considering BMW and Mercedes were once war manufacturers for the OG Nazis and are now breaking into the EV market…I’d say it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch of the imagination.
It’s a stupid idea. And everyone else has a strategy of trashing DeSantis during the debate, in hopes of raising themselves and getting a VP nomination.
According to some news I saw years ago, half the country was supposed to have been taken over by killer bees by now. I’m not going to worry just yet. Besides, the people who have “billions” at risk have the resources to do a hell of a lot more than me.
Vespa Velutina has arrived in my country a couple of years ago and believe me they are not only terrifying to look at they are reproducing super fast. I live in a major city and we are getting infested at a crazy rate. Last summer I could see about a hundred of them in about an hour just staring through my window. We have fruit trees and they came by the dozen to feed on them. This is not the same drama as the killer bee thing back then.
The billions they’re referring to are collective for the industry which is very far reaching. Frankly, I’m surprised the number isn’t much much higher.
Islamaphobia doesn't exist. A phobia is an irrational fear. It is perfectly rational to be afraid of people who's faith instructs them to kill the non-believers.
No it does not. That’s a hateful myth spread by bigots who try and take things out of context. The sahih Hadith AND the Quran actually talk in great length about how to ignore trolls and ignorant people who bash you and your religion, and to “repel evil with Good.” The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself signed the charter of Medina that guaranteed religious freedom.
Stay back on topic. I’m a practicing Muslim, and there’s 2 billion Muslims out there. If my religion told me to kill people why is it so rare then?
Then why are apostates and non Muslims treated so terribly in the Muslim world? And don’t tell me they aren’t.
You sound like a nice guy. But your religion has far more than its fair share of fundamentalist jackasses, the kind of people who will threaten violence because a refugee halfway around the world burned a book.
You’re trying to generalize 2 billion people and tie the actions of a few to the entire community.
Indonesia has the world’s largest Muslim population with over 300 Million Muslims. It also is home to 300 distinct religions with centuries of coexistence. The majority of the worlds Muslims live in democracies and get along just fine. Places like Senegal and Jordan just don’t have what you’re describing.
Pakistan is a poor country with a literacy rate of less than 50%. There’s a lot of violence there, but their Hindu-majority neighbor India with similar culture and poverty ALSO has massive religious violence problems with current lynch mobs and pogroms. It’s not the fault of a single religion.
And FYI, the reason this book burning got any attention at all is because these countries bombed Iraq and Afghanistan, and the far right in the country is very public about hating Muslims and immigrants, so this was an attempt at trolling people. The Muslim community largely ignored the entire thing, because its very clearly an attempt at trying to insult, and have not tried burning things in response. The media is focusing on the 0.001% of the community that did otherwise, just like how the makers of South Park got death threats from Christians even though almost no Christian’s worldwide joined in.
Never said it was, but I know multiple people who are non-Muslims in Muslim nations. The stories I hear from my friends in Egypt and Bangladesh are horrendous.
There’s monsters in every religion, but prevalence varies. In Indonesia, they still actually flog people for being gay sometimes… And if I said what I really thought about Muhammad in Riyadh and I was a Saudi citizen, I would die for it.
Oh, and no, I guarantee it’s all religious outrage, with the book burning. Stop trying to pretend it’s different. I get that you live in the West and want happy feelings about your religion, but your lived experience pales to that of my atheist and Christian friends who have to live in the Arab and Muslim world.
I’ve lived in poor Christian countries that still jail people for homosexuality. Jamaica and Uganda lynch suspected gays, but Argentina does not. Wealth and education are the big difference between the two, not religion. And religious fundamentalism is on the rise all over in the developing world, if you ignore that and try to blame a specific religion in general then you’re missing the massive death tolls in places like Central African Republic or the genocides in Myanmar.
Saudi Arabia is a total dictatorship and a tiny one at that (Chinas has 2x as many Muslims as Saudi) ; say what you want in a Muslim-majority Democracy like Albania or Senegal and nobody will stop you.
There were some highly publicized incidents in Bangladesh but they were loudly and widely condemned by the public and the religious leadership, then the government caught and punished those who did it and made examples of them. Violence is a human behavior, but you can’t blame a religion for it when the religion explicitly forbids such behavior AND all the major religious leaders spoke out against it.
I’ve traveled extensively throughout the Muslim world, you’re just going off of hearsay and anecdotes, and you’re being condescending to boot. If you’re going to stubbornly ignore facts then I can’t help you.
No, I’m sorry, but both rich and poor Muslim nations show extremely high rates of fundamentalist extremism. Oh, it’s higher in the poor ones. But it’s present in the UAE, SA, Kuwait, etc. I mean, Saudi citizens are the ones who were mainly finding Al Qaeda, remember.
If you actually have traveled throughout the Muslim world, you’ve done it as a Muslim. I’m glad you haven’t been exposed to the kind of discrimination the people in my life face on a daily basis.
That’s factually inaccurate. Saudi Arabia is a rich monarchy but the income of the non-royalty is somewhat poor. And they’re a DICTATORSHIP, and hardly someone you can use to generalize the literal 2 Billion Muslims when the majority of them live in democracies. There’s a reason the Muslim world condemns Saudi Arabia; even the Taliban allowed women to drive and Saudi didn’t.
You’re overgeneralizing your “people.” There’s atheists all over the Muslim world and they don’t hide it. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Albania, Bosnia, the list goes on. Nobody cares what you believe, honestly.
Who said we should? That’s a total strawman, Muslims have been doing more to condemn and stop these regimes and their abuses than you ever have. How much Arabic, Urdu, Swahili, Malay, Bangla, Albanian, and Bahasa media have you been following? Clearly none because you falsely assume we’re all condoning violence and extremism for some reason.
Clearly none because you falsely assume we’re all condoning violence and extremism for some reason.
Blatantly dishonest strawman. I said there was a high rate of fundamentalist extremism in the Muslim world. You are the one trying to claim I said that all Muslims are terrorist monsters or something like that. Obviously, that’s not true. Shit, I have a good friend who is a Muslim immigrant from Saudi Arabia.
…but my ability to judge people on their own merits doesn’t make me ignore the fact that even the nicest Muslim countries are shockingly conservative in terms of public enforcement of morality codes, or the extremely high rate of fundamentalist extremism.
I was replying to someone else in the above thread and then you replied, I’m sorry if I confused you with the other person.
You’re still wrong to claim that extremism is “an extremely high rate.” ISIS had 10,000 people, and were defeated by tens of millions of Muslim soldiers who crushed them as part of a joint effort with every Muslim-majority country in support. That should never define 2,000,000,000 Muslims.
Fundamentalism among Muslims isn’t even high compared to other religions; you have active genocide in progress by Buddhist extremists in Myanmar and Christian fundamentalists in Africa committing pogroms and lynching suspected gays. All religions have extremists and that’s a constant of humanity and can be solved with education.
They’re mocked and ostracized in most Muslim countries. They were never that popular to begin with (they had a brief spike due to outrage against the Iraq war) and mainly were inflated by Saudi money, but now that Saudi is going broke they lost a lot of their funding and Muslim governments pressured them to stop doing that. Watch any Arabic news channel and they get picked on by interviewers.
I’m sorry, how many Muslim countries have you been to and experienced? How many Muslims do you follow on social media, and in how many languages? How many sermons have you attended and how many halaqas?
Just because my facts don’t match your bigoted stereotypes doesn’t mean I’m wrong. Who’s really in denial of reality here?
I’m not Jewish either but it doesn’t mean I can spout such hateful claims, or argue with actual people in the religion that they support violence and oppression. You’re completely missing the point; I’m trying to correct you from your hurtful overgeneralizing prejudices and you’re pretending this is a matter of perspective.
I give up. I’ll do what the Quran says when ignorant people try to attack you, and say “Peace.”
I haven’t attacked you at all. You’ve denied basic reality about the prevalence of fundamentalism in the Muslim world. Shit, you tried to say that the only reason that there’s protests about a Quran burning is because of the fucking war in Iraq. Ridiculous.
Then if you didn’t disagree with me that there’s a high prevalence of fundamentalism in the Islamic world and that non Muslims face rampant discrimination in Muslim countries, I’m not sure what your point even was.
@SulaymanF is a big liar and he is trying to use Taqiyaa (deception) to show that his religion is peaceful. here is the proof of list of authentic hadeeths (which btw also teach you how to pray, because quran does not completely tell you how to) that apostates are required to be killed or reconvert to islam. sunnah.com/search?q=Whoever+changes+religion+kill…
here is proof that who ever disrespects allah/mohammad/quran need to be put to death.
<span style="color:#323232;">Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time:
</span><span style="color:#323232;">They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).
</span>
What exactly does it mean when it says that Allah “curses them in this world”? Some Muslim scholars have taken this to justify punishments of blasphemers.
Quran 5:33
Muslim scholars have also used verse 5:33 to justify the punishment of blasphemers:
<span style="color:#323232;">The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful
</span>
Yes because an ideology is the same as being gay lol.
And yes it might not be a existing distinction but one that can be made. Most Religions are stupid ideologies that I hate. Doesn’t mean I hate every Catholic for following an ideology that is for example homophobic as long as the person ignores that part of the ideology.
Islamophobia definitely exists, and is the phobia / hatred of all those who practice Islam, i.e. Muslims, via a generalization that all Muslims are extreme and dangerous. This is objectively false, and systemic Islamophobia needs to stop.
However, this here is cause for concern, as there are a few extreme fundamentalist Muslims calling for the death of people over a burned book. That’s not Islamophobia, that’s a fear response to a direct, physical threat.
Someone else in the thread mentioned some Americans calling for the death of anyone who burns the American flag. This is also extremely concerning.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.