u/BorderLivid2223

I know this post might feel kind of redundant because there are already a million SATS posts, but I genuinely could never get into the state properly until I changed one thing: I stopped trying to be “fully comfortable.”

Most people say to get as comfortable as possible, but in my experience that actually made things worse. If I was too comfortable (especially on my side or stomach), I’d start drifting straight into sleep and seeing random hypnagogic images, distortions, losing focus, unconsciousness, etc. My awareness would disappear before I could actually impress anything on the mind.

What worked for me was finding a position that was calm and sustainable, but slightly uncomfortable. Just enough that my body could fall asleep while my mind stayed clear.

For me, lying on my side or stomach was too comfortable, so I’d just drift straight into sleep and start getting random hypnagogic imagery/distortions before I could stay aware long enough. Now I basically force myself to stay mostly on my back with my upper body/head slightly raised or tilted. It’s not uncomfortable enough to distract me, but it stops me from completely knocking out instantly.

When I do this, my mind stays “black” and clear instead of producing random dreamlike imagery too early.

Another thing I noticed is that in this state the affirmations stop feeling like “me” consciously repeating words with effort. It starts feeling more like a detached awareness just calmly observing or moving through the affirmations. Kind of hard to explain, but it no longer feels like “my mouth/brain/body” is trying to force them, it feels more natural and distant.

Then eventually you just fall asleep while still in that flow of affirmations.

Before, there would always be a point where I *noticed (*at least to some degree) myself losing control and the affirmations would become jumbled, random images would start taking over, and I’d realise I was drifting off unconsciously. With this method, it feels much smoother because the transition into sleep happens while the affirmations/impression are still stable.

Another big thing: I stopped forcing visualisation.

A lot of people swear by vivid scenes, but deliberate visualisation kept me mentally “active” and awake. Instead, slow affirmations worked much better for me.

Example:

>“My skin is clear… glowing… and perfect.”

When I say it slowly in that state, each word creates an automatic impression/feeling without me needing to force visuals. The words themselves start carrying meaning emotionally.

The main goal for me became:

• body drifting off
• mind staying gently aware
• avoiding over-effort

Eventually there’s this point where the body feels distant/heavy/numb but you’re still conscious. That’s usually when the affirmations feel the most natural and effective.

The biggest mistake I used to make was either:

• being too awake from concentrating too hard or
• being too comfortable and instantly falling asleep unconsciously

There’s kind of a middle ground where the body sleeps first but awareness lingers.

Anyway, this obviously isn’t some universal method, but if you struggle with SATS maybe try experimenting with:

• a slightly less comfortable position
• slower affirmations instead of forced visualisation
• focusing on mental clarity instead of maximum relaxation

That balance changed everything for me.

We all know Islam establishes the death penalty for apostates (if you didn't know this, search it up). Muslims will argue that this was because, back then, leaving the religion was effectively political treason. It sounds plausible on the surface. But does this claim survive even a minute of internal scrutiny against the actual classical legal texts?

1. If the death penalty for apostasy was truly about military defection, armed mutiny, or political treason, why did classical jurists create a completely separate legal category for exactly that? Hirabah (waging war, banditry, terror) is derived from Qur’an 5:33. It covers armed assault, highway robbery, and spreading fear. It applies to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Baghy (rebellion) covers armed insurrection against legitimate rule. So what possible need was there for a third category, Riddah, that applies only to those who leave Islam and is triggered by doctrinal statements, not weapons? If the crime is treason, why not just prosecute under Hirabah? The answer is obvious: Riddah punishes something Hirabah does not: a change of belief
2. Classical law mandates a grace period (typically three days) where scholars debate the apostate and invite them to repent. If they sincerely recite the Shahadah, all charges are dropped and they walk free. Now apply this to treason. If a spy sells military secrets, does the court send a philosopher to argue with them about loyalty, and then pardon them if they recite the national anthem? Of course not. Treason causes material damage that a creed cannot undo. The istitabah procedure is to correct a wrong belief, not a harmful act. The mechanism itself tells you what the crime is about
3. Let’s open Reliance of the Traveller (Umdat al-Salik), a standard Shāfiʿī manual still in print and used today. Book o8.0–o8.7 defines what makes someone an apostate deserving of death. Here are actual entries:

o8.0 – “Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. It may come about through sarcasm, as when someone is told, ‘Trim your nails, it is sunna,’ and he replies, ‘I would not do it even if it were’…”

o8.1 – “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”

o8.7(3) – “to speak words that imply unbelief such as ‘Allah is the third of three’ or ‘I am Allah’—unless one’s tongue has run away with one…”

o8.7(17) – “to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah…”

There is zero reference to joining enemy armies, committing treason, or taking up arms. These are purely abstract, metaphysical, and intellectual triggers.

SOURCE: Sharia - Reliance Of The Traveller.pdf 301.40 KB

4. Apologists sometimes point to the Hanafi school, which imprisons an apostate woman rather than executing her, on the grounds that “women don’t fight.” They claim this proves the law was about combat. But this falls apart instantly:

• The other three major Sunni schools (Shāfiʿī, Mālikī, Ḥanbalī) all execute the apostate woman outright, with no combat requirement. The classical consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of execution for both genders.
• Even in the Hanafi school, a male apostate is executed without any proof he actually took up arms. The “potential” to fight is automatically imputed to him purely because of his gender. So the trigger remains his change of belief.
• The woman’s imprisonment still ends the moment she recites the Shahadah. Again, a theological formula dissolves the punishment, not a demonstration of renewed political loyalty.

Also classical law explicitly states that if an apostate also committed an actual crime (such as murder, theft, selling state secrets etc) then reciting the Shahādah does not get them off the hook for those. They still face retaliation (qiṣāṣ) or discretionary punishment (taʿzīr). This means the repentance only wipes out the apostasy charge itself. If the death penalty were truly about treason, then the “treason” damage would remain even after repentance, just like murder does. But it doesn’t. The fact that the hadd for riddah evaporates with a creed, while real crimes don’t, proves beyond any doubt that the targeted offence is the change of belief itself

We all know Islam establishes the death penalty for apostates (if you didn't know this, search it up). Muslims will argue that this was because, back then, leaving the religion was effectively political treason. It sounds plausible on the surface. But does this claim survive even a minute of internal scrutiny against the actual classical legal texts?

1. If the death penalty for apostasy was truly about military defection, armed mutiny, or political treason, why did classical jurists create a completely separate legal category for exactly that? Hirabah (waging war, banditry, terror) is derived from Qur’an 5:33. It covers armed assault, highway robbery, and spreading fear. It applies to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Baghy (rebellion) covers armed insurrection against legitimate rule. So what possible need was there for a third category, Riddah, that applies only to those who leave Islam and is triggered by doctrinal statements, not weapons? If the crime is treason, why not just prosecute under Hirabah? The answer is obvious: Riddah punishes something Hirabah does not: a change of belief
2. Classical law mandates a grace period (typically three days) where scholars debate the apostate and invite them to repent. If they sincerely recite the Shahadah, all charges are dropped and they walk free. Now apply this to treason. If a spy sells military secrets, does the court send a philosopher to argue with them about loyalty, and then pardon them if they recite the national anthem? Of course not. Treason causes material damage that a creed cannot undo. The istitabah procedure is to correct a wrong belief, not a harmful act. The mechanism itself tells you what the crime is about
3. Let’s open Reliance of the Traveller (Umdat al-Salik), a standard Shāfiʿī manual still in print and used today. Book o8.0–o8.7 defines what makes someone an apostate deserving of death. Here are actual entries:

o8.0 – “Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. It may come about through sarcasm, as when someone is told, ‘Trim your nails, it is sunna,’ and he replies, ‘I would not do it even if it were’…”

o8.1 – “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”

o8.7(3) – “to speak words that imply unbelief such as ‘Allah is the third of three’ or ‘I am Allah’—unless one’s tongue has run away with one…”

o8.7(17) – “to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah…”

There is zero reference to joining enemy armies, committing treason, or taking up arms. These are purely abstract, metaphysical, and intellectual triggers.

SOURCE: Sharia - Reliance Of The Traveller.pdf 301.40 KB

4. Apologists sometimes point to the Hanafi school, which imprisons an apostate woman rather than executing her, on the grounds that “women don’t fight.” They claim this proves the law was about combat. But this falls apart instantly:

• The other three major Sunni schools (Shāfiʿī, Mālikī, Ḥanbalī) all execute the apostate woman outright, with no combat requirement. The classical consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of execution for both genders.
• Even in the Hanafi school, a male apostate is executed without any proof he actually took up arms. The “potential” to fight is automatically imputed to him purely because of his gender. So the trigger remains his change of belief.
• The woman’s imprisonment still ends the moment she recites the Shahadah. Again, a theological formula dissolves the punishment, not a demonstration of renewed political loyalty.

Also classical law explicitly states that if an apostate also committed an actual crime (such as murder, theft, selling state secrets etc) then reciting the Shahādah does not get them off the hook for those. They still face retaliation (qiṣāṣ) or discretionary punishment (taʿzīr). This means the repentance only wipes out the apostasy charge itself. If the death penalty were truly about treason, then the “treason” damage would remain even after repentance, just like murder does. But it doesn’t. The fact that the hadd for riddah evaporates with a creed, while real crimes don’t, proves beyond any doubt that the targeted offence is the change of belief itself