Things that do not violate the Deen

Finding faults with Muhammad or Allaah is punishable by death.

But following systems of belief other than the Deen of Muhammad is not problematic. So according to my system of belief which is not Muhammadian, I consider some things that are permitted in the Deen of Muhammad to be not compatible with my system of belief.

Saying so does not mean that I think it is objectively wrong, because I do not believe in objective morality, and none of it is wrong according to the Deen of Muhammad, and is only wrong according to my moral code.

Todo: (1) I must keep proofs for each of these claims (there are 73 of them) (2) I must point out that these are my findings based on my study of those sources, and anyone who knows better than me should correct me

I must also split this into (1) things that are “not don’t-s” and (2) do-s. For example, if violence was simply not prohibited, it would not be an encouragement to go do it. Now, all things are stated to be not in violation of the Deen, but within this listing, I could point out which ones are simply not forbidden and which ones are encouraged. Also note that the do-s are different according to Maddhabs, so I will list them according to my knowledge of them. The specific categories I will use are (1) Results of what was Instructed and (2) Results of what was not forbidden.

Since saying “do X” does not tell you whether something is advised or mandatory, I will only consider as “mandatory” the things that are said as don’t-s. As for teachings, I will consider them as “recommended”, since they are recommended beliefs.

Instructed with Single Choice Instructed with Multiple Choices

Mandatory with Single Choice Mandatory with Multiple choices Mandatory (as derived by Companions) [would not sit down until the apostate Jew was killed; Bukhari 5157, 6923] Mandatory (as derived by ‘Ijmaa)

Recommended Not Forbidden (Derived)

(also try: Fighting - Instructed; Directives after fighting: Mandatory - with one default (“fighting”)) (also, for Fighting against polytheists, there, Qur’aan 9:5-16 overrides any Jizyah)

---

rough (Reply to the Christian Redditor)

Experience

I agree with this statement. Discovery of truth has to be by experience and experience alone. But actually that is where I disagree with Christians - and it is also the principle followed by all Eastern religions - at least the ones I’m aware of. About arguments being ineffective, it is also stated in the Maha Bhaaratha (Great India), in Yaksha Prashna, in the KM Ganguli version:

Verse: tarkoʼpratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā naiko ṛṣiryasya mataṃ pramāṇam‌ | dharmasya tattvaṃ nihitaṃ guhāyāṃ mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ ||

Translation: “Argument leads to no certain conclusion, Shruthi-s (scriptures) are different from one another; and there is not even one Rishi (sage) whose opinion can be accepted by all the truth about religion and duty is hid in caves; therefore, that alone is the path along which the Mahajana-s (great people) have trod.”

For this the analogy is what I stated yesterday. [state the analogy]

(If your mind is not tuned, you simply cannot know.)

Holy Spirit

I’ll agree on just one thing here. Your views of the Holy Spirit is that it “convicts one of sin” - and this is only true - according to you - if you believe in Jesus. But some also view that the Holy Spirit “convicts one to repent and turn to Jesus”. My view is that the effect is true, but the cause is simply the same as how Jews see Ruach HaKodesh, or the Spirit of God; as well as how the Veda-s, Aagama-s and Thanthra-s of India view Eeshvara Kripa (Divine )

Also, in common psychology, there’s the idea of how a person can never kill another person unless they dehumanize the other person somehow. In the military, they are trained to hate terrorists, while in Muhammad’s recitation and the reports of his sayings do that for the followers of his Deen.

An analogy: if a person only has knowledge of the set of causes, labelled X, and not other causes, labelled Y - upon seeing a condition K, he will only think that the cause of K could only have been one of the causes in X - even if in reality, it was one of the causes in Y. Now, not all people do this, but many people who are quick to judge will do it.

Ah - I remember the original analogy. It is from the distilled version of Kautilya Chaanakya’s state-crafting manual, Artha Shaasthra (Science of Prosperity), namely Pancha Thantra (Five Treatises). In the Treatise 5: Poorly Considered Actions, there is a story of The Loyal Mongoose. One day, a priest’s wife gave birth to a son. On the same day, a female mongoose gave birth to a baby mongoose, and the mother died. Feeling pity, the couple took the baby mongoose, and raised like their son. She served her own breast-milk to both, and bathed them together and put them on oil, and so on. And the mongoose and her son too were fond of each other. But the wife did not trust the mongoose entirely, because she knew the mongoose was ultimately an animal, and it may harm her son some day. So she always kept a watch on him. Then one day she had to fetch some water, and she informed her husband to keep a watch on the mongoose. But the husband being careless went out for alms without telling her to get food. At this time, a snake entered the house and crawled to the child’s bed. The mongoose, knowing the snake to be its enemy, and knowing it may harm its brother, it killed the snake and had his mouth and claws bloodied. Now the woman, knowing her husband’s carelessness, was anxious and was hurrying backwards. The mongoose was very proud and decided to run with blood on his mouth to his mother, to show her what he did. But when when she saw the excited mongoose, she thought the evil mongoose must have eaten her baby and threw the water pitcher on the mongoose, killing it, and ran to her house. But when she got there, she found the baby sleeping peacefully, while a snake was torn to shreds. Seeing this, she started lamenting, and when her husband came home with food, not knowing whom to blame, she started calling him “Greedy! Greedy!”, and said that it was because of his greed for food and not listening to her that she had to kill her son, the mongoose.

in this case, she killed the mongoose, because it had never occurred to her that a mongoose may actually kill something other than her child. While that’s a mistake of neglect, I could use another example too.

Consider [fill example]

Fear is the reason you want to make this hasty conclusion. And it is a fear of something you have inferred by analogy, but analogy applied on experience does not give you the epistemic right to make an objective claim. That is, if you had seen either Eesho or Abba - and it was not in a normal dream - then it is merely a hypothesis, albeit it could be meaningful to you. What you cannot do is claim that you know the inference is the truth. You could say that for some reasons you have directly experienced, some other idea cannot be the truth - but you cannot use an inference to make the same claim.

Disagreement (actually same as above - but extra point)

In order to understand any philosophy, you must understand its underlying philosophy deeply. Now that’s the way most sciences are studied, but not in the case of Abrahamic religions. They use anthropic ideologies to make their claims quickly - and only study metaphysics from there through apophatic and cataphatic theology - and that too, only the priests mostly - while the majority are believers - so they don’t have to spend time studying metaphysics when the Church does that for you. But it’s for the same reason that they go about condemning all other religions without studying their underlying principles.

---

rough Philosophy SE Question (https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/98490/i-have-seven-steps-to-conclude-a-dualist-reality-which-of-these-steps-are-consi/98543#98543) Answer:

1 is wrong. You stated: “This is the only thing we know to exist. The existence of other things can only be inferred.” But the entire principle of Indian religions is to tune your mind so that you can directly realize your objective self.

2 but through knowledge, we realize that we are only able to distinguish things because of our sense organs and our brains. For example, colours do not really exist, only a spectral signature does. The three cone cells in our eyes produce a tristimulus based on each of their spectral sensitivities which is interpreted by the brain. They are therefore only as real as button press events existing within an app. It is the compiled object code that exists, and the app is simply its interpretation by the computer.

3 using symbols are not necessary to know something. It just helps you in the process since your mind’s context window is limited.

Now, of course, language is lossy. But that doesn’t mean that information is lost in language in all cases. If you are the one making the notes and reading it, you could, depending on your memory, remember the original event. This is the principle of Soothra-s in Indian literature - which are similar to a list of key points - which can often be in the form of incomplete phrases - which are meant to be used by someone who knows the real field of study to remember key points.

For example, while an equation does not have all the information about some event, the person who wrote the equation would have the complete idea since if they had directly experienced the effect beforehand.

4 we do see that they have similarities as well as differences. By that, we take care to ensure the earlier point - that is - information that is conveyed by symbols would only be relatable to the extend we share similarities with the other person. If they use private symbols, it won’t help us - and the same is true for private meanings applied to symbols.

and as I stated before, the so called subjective perceptions could ultimately be illusions.

5 that conclusion can be made, but then as I said earlier, the distinction between the outside world and the inside world may just be arbitrary. It is never the app’s code that is reacting to the inputs to the CPU - the app’s code is loaded into a running state, and it is that running state that is reacting to inputs. The app remains unmodified, but is the source of the running state.

6 but if the external world is endless, either inwards or outwards - then we would have an ontological difficulty in describing why it exists. And we’ll start to wonder whether our mind is making all things up.

7 in step 3 what I realized is that language is only a tool and not the ultimate way of knowing something. The tool can never be the real thing. In other words, a whirlpool is not a mathematical formulation of the whirlpool.

---

About Fighting and Killing

Instructed with Single Choice

• Violating treaties that do not have a definite term when it is possible to fight
• Fighting the Kuffaar (disbelievers) when the ratio of Muhammadians to Kuffaar is greater than 1:2
• Fighting the polytheists who are not in a valid treaty (Mu’aahid-s) or are protected visitors (Mu’ustamin-s) [Exception: Maaliki Maddhab allows all polytheists to pay Jizya too, and Hanaafi Maddhab allows all but Arab polytheists to pay Jizya]
• Fighting Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians who are not in a valid treaty (Mu’aahid-s) or are protected visitors (Mu’ustamin-s) and refuse to pay the Jizyah and acknowledge humiliation
• Striking monks who shave the middle of their heads, to expel the devil
• Killing atheists by stoning
• Considering anyone who defies the majority’s interpretation of the Qur’aan and Sunnah as an apostate
• Burning the houses of believers who skip prayers

Mandatory (as derived by Companions)

• Killing apostates

Mandatory (as derived by ‘Ijmaa)

• Killing anyone who curses Muhammad or Allaah
• Killing anyone who finds a fault with Muhammad or Allaah

Handling Defeated Disbelievers after Fighting

Instructed with Multiple Choices

• Killing any defeated disbelieving male except those who do not have armpit hair, are elderly, or blind
• Taking defeated disbelieving males as slaves
• Taking the women of the defeated disbelievers as slaves
• Considering the marriages of the captured women to be annulled even if their husbands are alive

Not Forbidden (Derived)

• Taking the wife of a slave man from him

Handling of Slaves

Instructed with Multiple Choices

• Buying and selling slave men
• Encouraging the ownership of slaves, since freeing one’s slaves frees them from their sins
• Encouraging people to sell slaves to other Muhammadians instead of freeing them, as Muhammad advised

Recommended

• Considering trading multiple disbelieving slaves - by the example of two black slaves - to buy believing slaves

Handling of Female Slaves

Instructed with Multiple Choices

• Having intercourse with the captive women of the disbelievers who have been defeated if she does not object
• Buying and selling captive women after intercourse if the owner always pulled out, or if she is not pregnant

Not Forbidden

• Not giving them rights beyond basic survival rights to coerce them into having sex
• Sharing slave women with others including one’s own family for sex as long as they are not charged for it, if she does not object

Handling of Female Slaves who are Pregnant

???

• Keeping the mothers of their children slaves
• Keeping the children of slave women slaves

Marriage and Intercourse Rules

Instructed with Single Choice

• Marrying and having intercourse with any female who can withstand intercourse from among the Muhammadians or the People of the Book, as long as long as she or does not object
• Considering silence from a woman as consent
• Considering females of any age to be able to withstand intercourse unless there is a clear objection that does not contradict the Sunnah - where a 9 year old girl who was pre-pubescent, too was demonstrated to be fit.

Treatment of Women

Instructed with Single Choice

• Considering wives as one’s property acquired through payment to her father
• Prohibiting a wife from divorcing the husband directly, or requesting a divorce - by Talaq (repudiation) - without what he considers to be a valid reason - unless he gave deferred her the right to do it by herself, by giving her the right to do a Tafwid (delegated repudiation) - either during the marriage contract, or while married [since it was considered that a man would never want to divorce his wife without a reason, and female nature is to want rationality and self-control - as a couple would get bad reputation since a divorce would expose their family secrets to the public]
• Prohibiting a wife from divorcing the husband judicially without providing what the Shareey’ah court considers to be a valid reason - which does not involve dislike of the husband [Exception: Maaliki Maddhab considers the hatred of the husband as a valid reason to request divorce, since such a relationship is harmful; while Hanaafi school prohibits such reasons]
• Prohibiting a couple from re-marrying without the wife marrying another husband, having sexual intercourse with him, and then getting divorced by him
• Hitting wives who disobey
• Considering that a man should not questioned of his authority to beat his wife

Not Forbidden

• Prohibiting a wife from leaving one’s property in any case (scary how a woman can be locked up in a large apartment if one is very rich, such that her screams won’t be heard)
• Prohibiting a wife from seeing her family if he considers that they will lead her astray [Hanaafi and Maaliki Maddhab-s object to this - and say that a wife should disobey the husband and serve her father, whether he is a Muhammadian or Kaafir; while Hanbaali and Shaafa’ee Maddhabs allow prohibiting the wife to go out, but does not allow prohibiting the family to come visit her, but he can still prohibit the meeting if he fears that some harm may result from their visit]

Rights of women

Results of what was Instructed

• Not allowing any number of female witnesses to be able to report crimes
• Considering it impermissible for a woman to go out without covering their face, hair and hands

Handling of gay and effeminate men

Results of what was Instructed

• Men who have sexual intercourse with other men are to be killed
• Effeminate men are to be expelled from one’s houses

Typical stereotyping of women

Results of what was Instructed

• Considering women to be the worst trials
• Considering women to approach like the devil
• Considering the sight of women to be disruptive to prayer
• Considering praying for the good in a woman and protection from the evil in her
• One must prefer a younger woman to an older woman, because one can play with her
• Expecting wives to provide sex anytime one is tempted by another woman

Emotionally abusive behaviour

Results of what was Instructed

• Considering wives insignificant considering the maidens in heaven [RED, Abusive]
• Considering women who complain about being beat to not be the best of women [RED, Abusive]
• Considering angels to curse wives who refuse sex anytime the man asks them for it

Effective Double Standards

• Men can have sex with any of their slave women, but women cannot have sex with any of their slave men, since intercourse is ownership, and a slave man cannot own a believing woman

Encouragement of Deception

• Considering war to be deception
• Permitting any lies to be told during war
• Encouraging Muhammadians to hide the sins of other Muhammadians so their sins will be hidden by Allaah
• Acting according to good and Hadeeths is fine, but others cannot complain about those Hadeeths, since not all Muhammadians follow it
• Weak Hadeeths are used in Da’wah, since it’s usage is not forbidden, as they have plausible deniability

Encouragement of Hostile Attitudes

• Considering that the end of Allah’s purpose won’t arrive until Jews fight the Muhammadians and they are killed
• Considering that the end of Allah’s purpose won’t arrive until Muhammadians fight the Turks
• Considering that the end of Allah’s purpose won’t arrive until Muhammadians fight people who have shoes made of hair
• Considering that the end of Allah’s purpose won’t arrive until Muhammadians fight people who have small eyes
• Discouraging taking disbelievers as allies
• Insulting disbelievers

Inhumane treatment of animals

• Killing black dogs without limit
• Killing snakes without limit
• Killing geckos without limit
• Killing salamanders without limit

Inhumane punishments to civil crimes

• Considering it necessary to give 100 lashes to adulterers [which]
• Considering it necessary to stone adulterers to death [which]
• Considering it necessary to cut off the hands of robbers

Harmful Behaviours

• Killing a believing boy if one fears that he may disbelieve later
• Drinking water from dirty wells by considering water to always be pure

Prophet

• Killing anyone who finds a fault with the Prophet

Exemptions given to the Prophet

• Considering it right for the Prophet to break any term of any treaty without consequence as long as Allaah gives an exemption
• Considering it right for the Prophet to have exemptions from several rules
• Considering it right for the Prophet to cancel the freeing of a slave, and to sell him to someone else
• Considering it right for the Prophet to reveal a verse allowing sex with female slaves when his wife objected to it

Treatment of women by the Prophet

• Considering it to be realistic that a woman would consent to sex right after all the men in her family and the whole tribe was beheaded and her newly wed husband was tortured and killed for not revealing the location of their treasure
• Considering it to be realistic for a woman who gave herself in for marriage so that her tribe won’t be killed to be happy in that marriage

[Concern for me: If I think that it is not realistic, what opinion do I have of the Prophet? After thinking, I say: consenting to the marriage and intercourse was up to her, and coercing one to do so is not forbidden according to Muhammadians, so there is no fault according to the Muhammadian rationale]

Prophet Contradictions

• Prophet considering that bells are the tools of Satan while also saying that he received revelations like the ringing of a bell