u/Vessel_soul

Source https://youtu.be/5YuDFZvJWAA?si=NbejRq0bJa7u5V1M

To the arabs & NAWA i want hear your thoughts on this racially swift of marriage around north africa and west asia. What you think of kandari researchs, arugment and his questions regarding divorces? what solution would you guy present in order bring back long term marriage and family communicate support that doesnt neglect/reject group, race, gender opportunity and freedom?

I do agree him as today divorce are high in all nations but i think as kandaric said being way too traditionalism and way too non traditionalism is not good for the culture, family line, children, resistance, unity, etc. There need to be find other way to preserve marriage, because marriage is more than just love but a whole package that reflect who you are, your political belief, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViI5ZwC8cgM

the timestamp: 35:28-38:29

timestamp: 27:54-38:29(this part of discussion is about whether muslim should have complicated Philosophy like having 100 arugment for proving god or just belief of god because you born into religion household. It still ties to the post I made and to what Adamson said in 35:28-38:29)

This part, Peter Adamson talks about how being born into muslim family or any faith family means nothing, if there are no reasons and argument to justly and defend the religion you were born and deeply care, if you don't development argument & encounter arguments, finding evidences, etc to defend your faith against christian and jewish polemics, then it will lead to skepticism to leaving the faith.

This is what ealry/medival muslim and rest faith members saw and understood that having skepticism especially in an environment that is dominated by polemic from certain faith group clerics than yours can makes someone lose their faith, if not challenge & defended.

I highlight this part of video, is because Adamson brings a realistic view on conversion that many apologetic & polemic have a binary view on. Is that non-Muslim did not convert to islam just because the land was conquered by muslim rulers or by the tax(that polemics always bring regarding conversion). Instead, through intellectual discussion & debate that led religious individuals/groups to convert to different religions, because the religious scholars present strong arguments, encounter-arguments, and evidences against their opponent and leaving the people to be convinced by them, saying "huh, that muslim is actually making some pretty good points."

I know conversion is a complex topics and there are many factors why people converted to different religions, but lot of apologetic and polemics have this binary view on conversion that they either converted by forces or by sufis way, no middle ground or other factors that contribute the most than those two which are dominated views held by apologetic and polemic.