u/sorywho

How is it fair for a Just God to send the final critical message to one specific region on earth? A person's religion is almost entirely decided by where they are born. Muslims condemn Jews acting entitled that they are the chosen people by god but the logic applies to muslims on a broader scale.

If god already knows the future, he knew exactly what culture and religion a person would be born into before creating them. Punishing non muslims with eternal hell for shirk means god is punishing them for a destiny.

Muslims claim Qada and Qadr are like different branches on a tree, and we use "free will" to choose a branch based on faith. But when we ask hard questions, we get that we kurang iman. It makes no sense for a loving god to punish us for exploring different paths when he created the possibilities.

If this Allah is all powerful and Islam is the divine religion and way of life for all humans, then why is his religion so easily weaponized by flawed humans? Calling it a TEST contradicts the idea of a loving creator. A truly loving parent guides and holds their child. They don't leave a 1400 year old book and go silent while humans continue to evolve.

The bigger picture is a humanised God

We are told god is perfect, yet scripture constantly gives him human traits like anger, disappointment, and a need for praise. A perfect creator should not have a need to be worshipped. Needing validation makes a deity look insecure.

Look at the universe: stars are born, shine beautifully, then eventually swallowed by black holes. There is creation, suffering, and destruction happening all at once. So god probably isn't a parent or judge, it is a neutral cosmic engine/deity driving a cycle.

An “evil” deity need to destroy things forever. To do this, it must also create constantly. This deity is totally unaffected by the destruction, gaining and losing nothing. Therefore, it isn't actually evil. It is just completely indifferent.

Ultimately, if this all loving Allah exists, he would not allow his creations to suffer eternally in jahannam. And if the creator of the universe is actually just an indifferent cosmic engine, then human worship is entirely pointless.

I was perfectly fine during my childhood. later in my teenage years however, I suffered with sinusitis. then in my early adulthood for 5-6 years, i suffered with eczema.

moving abroad to a different climate and completely different environment was what stopped my eczema completely. no creams, steroids or any other medication needed. back in my hot and humid country, sweat was the number one trigger. but even moving to a place with temperate climate, my eczema never resurfaced during summers.

eczema is essentially a condition of a hyperactive immune system. practically, we need an environment that our immune system would fight against. so with completely foreign bacteria and microbes, our immune system can actively fight against it instead of ‘attacking’ our own body.

ofcourse it’s not that simple to just move away. as an alternative I think that theoretically, going out in nature regularly should contribute to keeping eczema under control.

Hi everyone,

I’ve been accepted to an EMJM Program and the Erasmus scholarship. I’m a third country national (non EU from the global south).

I have my reasons of wanting to work in EU after the programme which are personal and career motivated. As a woman, it is hard to progress in my country of origin.

So in my case now, I’m mostly financially independent. Most of my female peers have back up and help from their family.

In the case that I don’t get a job immediately after my masters, I will need to apply for a job seeking visa. To my knowledge, we usually need go have around 12k euros of saving.

I have two countries to go to which are Belgium and Estonia. I know Estonia is relatively cheaper than Belgium.

Is it possible to save a lot from the given 1.4k euros monthly allowance from studying in these countries? Without living frugally?

Should I take 350€ shared dorm or 450€ studio flat in Estonia? (Both including bills)

this happens when the other person asks us for space.

our brain perceives this as a threat and triggers our abandonment issues. consequently, we go into panic mode. first we ask for clarity and validation constantly. then the danger zone is pivoting to self-victimisation. ‘but I was there for you’

we try to override someone’s boundaries (need for space) by negotiating. for example, we try to have a routine that they don’t have to be fully present for us. if that doesn’t work, we express our fear or hurt. objectively speaking, this is guilt tripping. it doesn’t matter whether we express it gently without being aggressive.

it took me years to fully understand that this is guilt tripping. this pattern doesnt make us a bad person except if we do not work to change this unhealthy habit. when a person isn’t able to show up for us, the healthy action is just match the other person’s energy and walk away.

I sabotaged my recent relationship due to this and my severe emotional dysregulation. (the relationship problems weren’t just my fault) I didn’t even understand this when I was previously in a relationship with another anxious who did the same exact thing. us anxiously attached usually have poor boundaries. we reflect but getting to the point takes a lot. it also took me 2 friendships that ended up with me being blocked to fully grasp this.

overall, we shouldnt chase someone who’s not available to show up for us. obviously, this is easier said than done. I think the strategy is to ‘procrastinate’ and not respond or reach out to them immediately. we need to give ourselves more time to reflect.

this happens when the other person asks us for space.

our brain perceives this as a threat and triggers our abandonment issues. consequently, we go into panic mode. first we ask for clarity and validation constantly. then the danger zone is pivoting to self-victimisation. ‘but I was there for you’

we try to override someone’s boundaries (need for space) by negotiating. for example, we try to have a routine that they don’t have to be fully present for us. if that doesn’t work, we express our fear or hurt. objectively speaking, this is guilt tripping. it doesn’t matter whether we express it gently without being aggressive.

it took me years to fully understand that this is guilt tripping. this pattern doesnt make us a bad person except if we do not work to change this unhealthy habit. when a person isn’t able to show up for us, the healthy action is just match the other person’s energy and walk away.

I sabotaged my recent relationship due to this and my severe emotional dysregulation. I didn’t even understand this when I was in a relationship with another anxious who did the same exact thing. us anxiously attached usually have poor boundaries. we reflect but it doesn’t necessarily gets to the point. it took me 2 friendships that ended up with me being blocked to fully grasp this.

overall, we shouldnt chase someone who’s not available to show up for us in the moment. this is easier said than done. I think the ultimate strategy is to ‘procrastinate’ and not respond or reach out to them immediately. we need to give ourselves more time to reflect.

The first 4 months was a struggle for me physically and mentally. It’s my 7th month now and I still get the waves of grief. I’ve been feeling rather empty most of the time now. This was a harder breakup for me compared to the one before. Previously, I was able to travel more, do more new things and make new meaningful friends… I would like to hear from my fellow redditors about how you all have been doing.

….”the Qur’an offers no support for capital punishment in the case of apostasy.”

“The Qur’an addresses disbelief over 150 times, and never once does it grant human beings the authority to punish someone for disbelief.”

“Prophet Muhammad ﷺ Never Punished Apostates.”

“Islam Guarantees Freedom of Belief For All People.”

I found that he was quoting a few verses here and there to support his arguments. It’s worth mentioning that however, he did not the address the verses like “kill the disbelievers”.

How do we exactly refute this claim with sufficient evidence from the scripture? Most times, muslims say that the verses related to killing the kafirs are during wars.

Apparently he’s now with a female coworker he started hanging out with a month before he tossed me to the side heartlessly. Im no saint or martyr so he will get his karma, and somehow I just want peace after all this anger and depression he caused me.

We’re all aware of the verses in the Quran and Sahih Hadiths allowing marital rape, ‘disciplining’ wife, child marriages, sex slavery, polygamy.. It was also mentioned that women is deficient compared to men, worth only as half of a witness. Not to forget, hijab.

It is true that Islam did reduce female infanticide in the Arabian region. On top of that, Islam did introduce a legal framework that allowed women their own independent property. But to say that Islam gave women’s rights as if Islam is perfect — this is an exaggeration and simply false. It is also overlooking everything else discriminatory against women that Islam enforced.

Before Islam was founded (early 7th century Common Era), Muhammad met Khadijah, an independently wealthy aristocrat who had accumulated her fortune through inherited wealth and her own merchant business. She was brilliant in her own right, as she successfully protect her capital within the patriarchal confines of Preislamic Arabia. Paradoxically, if Khadijah had operated under the later Islamic framework of inheritance which legally mandates that female relatives receive significantly smaller fractions of wealth compared to males—her initial capital would have been reduced to mere scraps. As a result, she would have had limited independent economic power.

We can take a look at surrounding regions decades and even centuries before Islam was founded.

1. In Ancient Egypt (1550 Before Common Era - 30 BCE), women had legal & financial rights as they owned, managed, bought and sold property independently. They could enter into legal contracts, execute wills, serve as witnesses in court, and sue for legal redress. In terms of divorce, they could initiate one easily. Women also worked in various profession (doctors, priestesses, merchants) Historians mentioned that ancient Egyptian women were granted freedom and rights equal to that of a modern woman in a progressive society.

2. Much of the Ancient Rome (509 BCE - 284 BCE) was highly patriarchal compared to Ancient Egypt. But by the late Republic and Empire, wealthy women gained significant de facto economic power and could manage property through loopholes, though they still needed a male guardian's formal signature for major transactions.

3. In Ancient Sparta (5th Century BCE – 4th Century BCE), men were focused on military training so women were granted freedom and economic power. Spartan women could inherit, buy, and sell property completely independently. Spartan girls were state-educated, well-fed, and participated in public physical training alongside boys. Unlike Athenian women, they moved freely through the city, managed households, ran agricultural estates. 

4. In Ancient Mesopotamia (1792 BCE – 1750 BCE) Babylonian women could own land, manage businesses, trade goods, and act as scribes or priestesses. If a woman wanted to run a business, the law recognized her right to do so. They also had a legal code that protected wives. Despite this, men did hold a greater leverage in initiating divorce.

5. Compared to the romans, ancient Celts (500 BCE – 600 CE) provided that if a woman brought as much wealth (cattle, land) into the marriage as her husband, she was the equal ruler of the household. No major decision could be made without her consent. Celtic women could legally divorce their husbands for a variety of reasons including infidelity and physical abuse.

Now these were just examples of surrounding regions. This is not accounting Ancient China’s Shang & Tang dynasties, as well as other Germanic tribes, the Turks & Mongols, the ancient Mayans & Incas in the Americas..

The conclusion we can draw from these examples is that patriarchy is directly attributed to strict, artificial institutionalizations. The shift came to be with the agricultural revolution. When we look back at hunter-gatherers, they were fundamentally egalitarian, meaning that women and men held equal status.

Today, the modern world mimics hunter-gatherer dynamics because our economy no longer relies on heavy plowing. Furthermore, recent archaeological studies have debunked old myths by proving that in hunter-gatherer societies, both women and men hunted. This perfectly mirrors our current era, where both women and men work as equal economic contributors.

Consequently, it makes no sense to continue enforcing 7th-century Islamic laws that are legally regressive compared to modern progressive frameworks. We can look to countries like Finland and Iceland, and even a non-Western nation like Bhutan — to see where greater gender equality thrives. Ultimately, clinging to ancient legal frameworks is destructive to a modern society. We have seen the reality of this anachronism playing out in Iran, where forcing agricultural era restrictions onto a contemporary populace has led to systemic instability, intense social unrest, and economic stagnation.

Some references:

Johnson, J. H. (2004). Women's Legal Rights in Ancient Egypt. University of Chicago Oriental Institute.

Pomeroy, S. B. (1995). Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity. Schocken Books.

Pomeroy, S. B. (2002). Spartan Women. Oxford University Press.

Roth, M. T. (1997). Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Scholars Press.

Kelly, F. (1988). A Guide to Early Irish Law. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

We’re all aware of the verses in the Quran and Sahih Hadiths allowing marital rape, ‘disciplining’ wife, child marriages, sex slavery, polygamy.. It was also mentioned that women is deficient compared to men, worth only as half of a witness. Not to forget, hijab.

It is true that Islam did reduce female infanticide in the Arabian region. On top of that, Islam did introduce a legal framework that allowed women their own independent property. But to say that Islam gave women’s rights as if Islam is perfect — this is an exaggeration and simply false. It is also overlooking everything else discriminatory against women that Islam enforced.

Before Islam was founded (early 7th century Common Era), Muhammad met Khadijah, an independently wealthy aristocrat who had accumulated her fortune through inherited wealth and her own merchant business. She was brilliant in her own right, as she successfully protect her capital within the patriarchal confines of Preislamic Arabia. Paradoxically, if Khadijah had operated under the later Islamic framework of inheritance which legally mandates that female relatives receive significantly smaller fractions of wealth compared to males—her initial capital would have been reduced to mere scraps. As a result, she would have had limited independent economic power.

We can take a look at surrounding regions decades and even centuries before Islam was founded.

1. In Ancient Egypt (1550 Before Common Era - 30 BCE), women had legal & financial rights as they owned, managed, bought and sold property independently. They could enter into legal contracts, execute wills, serve as witnesses in court, and sue for legal redress. In terms of divorce, they could initiate one easily. Women also worked in various profession (doctors, priestesses, merchants) Historians mentioned that ancient Egyptian women were granted freedom and rights equal to that of a modern woman in a progressive society.

2. Much of the Ancient Rome (509 BCE - 284 BCE) was highly patriarchal compared to Ancient Egypt. But by the late Republic and Empire, wealthy women gained significant de facto economic power and could manage property through loopholes, though they still needed a male guardian's formal signature for major transactions.

3. In Ancient Sparta (5th Century BCE – 4th Century BCE), men were focused on military training so women were granted freedom and economic power. Spartan women could inherit, buy, and sell property completely independently. Spartan girls were state-educated, well-fed, and participated in public physical training alongside boys. Unlike Athenian women, they moved freely through the city, managed households, ran agricultural estates. 

4. In Ancient Mesopotamia (1792 BCE – 1750 BCE) Babylonian women could own land, manage businesses, trade goods, and act as scribes or priestesses. If a woman wanted to run a business, the law recognized her right to do so. They also had a legal code that protected wives. Despite this, men did hold a greater leverage in initiating divorce.

5. Compared to the romans, ancient Celts (500 BCE – 600 CE) provided that if a woman brought as much wealth (cattle, land) into the marriage as her husband, she was the equal ruler of the household. No major decision could be made without her consent. Celtic women could legally divorce their husbands for a variety of reasons including infidelity and physical abuse.

Now these were just examples of surrounding regions. This is not accounting Ancient China’s Shang & Tang dynasties, as well as other Germanic tribes, the Turks & Mongols, the ancient Mayans & Incas in the Americas..

The conclusion we can draw from these examples is that patriarchy is directly attributed to strict, artificial institutionalizations. The shift came to be with the agricultural revolution. When we look back at hunter-gatherers, they were fundamentally egalitarian, meaning that women and men held equal status.

Today, the modern world mimics hunter-gatherer dynamics because our economy no longer relies on heavy plowing. Furthermore, recent archaeological studies have debunked old myths by proving that in hunter-gatherer societies, both women and men hunted. This perfectly mirrors our current era, where both women and men work as equal economic contributors.

Consequently, it makes no sense to continue enforcing 7th-century Islamic laws that are legally regressive compared to modern progressive frameworks. We can look to countries like Finland and Iceland, and even a non-Western nation like Bhutan — to see where greater gender equality thrives. Ultimately, clinging to ancient legal frameworks is destructive to a modern society. We have seen the reality of this anachronism playing out in Iran, where forcing agricultural era restrictions onto a contemporary populace has led to systemic instability, intense social unrest, and economic stagnation.

Some references:

Johnson, J. H. (2004). Women's Legal Rights in Ancient Egypt. University of Chicago Oriental Institute.

Pomeroy, S. B. (1995). Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity. Schocken Books.

Pomeroy, S. B. (2002). Spartan Women. Oxford University Press.

Roth, M. T. (1997). Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Scholars Press.

Kelly, F. (1988). A Guide to Early Irish Law. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

I am a Malay Sarawakian currently in Kuching. I often feel a deep sense of envy toward my Dayak peers because they are able to express themselves so freely. They have managed to retain much of their indigenous culture despite being predominantly Christian or Catholic.

I wish I could relate to and take pride in my heritage the way they do. When I was studying abroad, my Dayak friends would happily introduce their culture to foreigners. Meanwhile, I felt so small because Malay culture nowadays feels so monolithic. My Malay peers (all of whom were from Semenanjung) would only ever promote the generic "multicultural, multiracial" aspect of Malaysia.

Having lived in both Kuching and KL, I’ve noticed that while Malay Sarawakians are still religious, they are far more tolerant than the hypocritical Malays in KL. Those from other parts of Semenanjung are even worse. When they introduce Malay culture, it is always tied to Islamic elements. It was embarrassing to see some of these Malay students abroad running dakwah and usrah groups, behaving almost like cults. So many of them claim Shariah law is perfect, yet they are always desperate to remain abroad in non muslim countries.

I also wish I came from a family that celebrates Gawai and Christmas instead. I envy the freedom of saying Oohaaa instead of cheers while drinking tuak or langkau, and enjoying manok pansuh, tapai and ulat sokot. I admire the beautiful pua kumbu motifs on Dayak outfits, the mesmerizing traditional dances, and the tribal tattoos..

I do try to take pride in the cultural aspects of Raya like the act of forgiveness, the food, and wearing songket or batik. In the end though, religious elements always take over, it saddens me. Ultimately, I know I want to settle down with someone cultured—and by that, not a European/white. So whenever I hear others speak about their culture with such pride, I feel envy.

Luckily, and due to my hardwork, I have the opportunity to live abroad again soon. The very least is that I never have to return to live in a shell. Even so, I know there will always be a hole within me. There’s a craving for a true sense of belonging to a culture that doesn't strip me of my autonomy.