[TRIGGER WARNING] Secular Atheists Who Advocate BEATING WOMEN
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- #HaqiqatShow #Haqiqatjou #muslimskeptic
Full episode: www.youtube.co...
Support our work with a donation: muslimskeptic....
MuslimSkeptic:
Newsletter: muslimskeptic....
Twitter: x.com/muslimsk...
Rumble: rumble.com/c/M...
Daniel Haqiqatjou:
Twitter: x.com/haqiqatjou
Telegram: t.me/haqiqatjou
Full episode: ruclips.net/user/livebvMwjT1Vu-g
Support our work with a donation: muslimskeptic.com/contribute/
Is it a coincidence the nypd is trained in teI aveev?
SIave trayd was only removed after tech made the work for cheeper.
The so called girIs movement switched farm to xio det sIave so nisa can pay on thier lncome too.
in short Ieft has kept ppl down calling haram Iiberty or give ineffective solutions that deaI with symptoms & not causes usually.
The right is used for wor.
Islam is the baIance.
in short Ieft has kept ppl down calling haram Iiberty or give ineffective solutions that deaI with symptoms & not causes usually.
The right is used for wor.
Islam is the baIance.
They are the barbarians. Yet, they call us barbarians. 😂
Hypocrisy is a form of their morality! 😂👊
😂 true
Every accusation is a confession eith proof.
They accuse Islam of everything they have done.
*This is the real face of atheism, secularism and liberalism.*
yeah the real face of a group that is not a group . you'll do everything to deflect from the nonsense of religion
@@ang0051keep sleeping
@@4TH-Raikages-Father said by someone who follow not only a religion, but the fakest ever 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@ang0051 says the atheist
@@falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo6543 im agnostic and atheism>magic
This is what real atheism looks like, "No rules and no regulations. Just follow the law of jungle"
So, instead follow the law of a chomo?
@@carolinebjerkelund767 just don't cry when injustice happens to u. Accept the fact that u r a loser
@@carolinebjerkelund767 take ur medicine, psycho.
@@TruthSeeker8834 Hey, I don't follow a chomo, you do
@@carolinebjerkelund767 exactly according to atheism and their darwanian theory of evolution, chomos are a part of nature
Every accusation is a confession. 'Nuff said.
When you are a xio.
Uhh so snarky...
That is why they have been expelled hundreads of times throughout history.
They accuse Islam of everything they hate about themselves...
Feminists be chilling
“Secular atheists” no need to say the obvious
النسويات مشغولين في الشواطئ، يصيفوا 😂
جعيص
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Only in countries that are hot, in cold countries they cannot 🤣
Saved Bangladeshi students 🇧🇩🇧🇩
Daniel you too funny 😂 brother. The west has always been backwards, nothing new here.
Well I am not sympathetic towards their governance system but take a look at muslim countries and compare them to the West of course we don't looted other countries just like USA did or wage war on other countries but still we lacked discipline,ethics,hard work... etc also we lied too much and deceive each other back stabbing specially who stands for Palestine no one who stands for bosnia no one who stands for Kashmir and Burma no one who stands for iraq,Yemen,Syria,Lebanon again no one I am talking about Muslim countries they don't support each other they are very much divided because of various reasons i-e self interests,ethnic,Nationalistic differences so we are in the position to lecture west or talk about West also we have done in the past is great but what contribution Muslims did in the latest century in different fields of life whether it's scientific or religious??????once one of my Christian colleagues said to me that islam is the great religion but muslims are the worst followers of it I can't be able to reply them back because I am seeing the current situation what should I told them "look how great muslims are" they are ethically, moral wise the best and they are following their religion as much as they can their religion is best one to follow in fact which is best one but no muslim is following that religion except for minority Among them followed it properly.
Damnn, the perspective really does matter. Subhan'Allah
Feminist in vacation 😂
Where are the feminists, I can't see them🤔
We need to liberate the US, bring Shariah, and give American women their rights.
No, no, the societies who adopt, promote, and force this secular-liberal modernity are being punished by the outcomes of the very ideologies they adopt and force unto others. Let us focus only on the Muslim-majority world. The societies of evil and corruption will take care of themselves.
Allahuma Barik. On point, and may Allah bless you Brother Daniel.😊😊
Beautiful liberal values on display
Liberalism is state-bootlicking.
democracy is freedom to say whatever you want, as long as it's what I wanna hear
This empowerment is dangerous.
الحمد لله على نعمة الإسلام الذي شرع الحجاب و غص البصر و عدم الاختلاط لكي لا تتعرض المرأة لمثل هذه المواقف و لا تتأذى في حياءها و وقارها قبل جسدها.يقول سبحانه وتعالى:{ الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاء بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنفَقُواْ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ فَالصَّالِحَاتُ قَانِتَاتٌ حَافِظَاتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ اللّهُ وَاللاَّتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلاَ تَبْغُواْ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا [سورة النساء:34].
لقد شرع الإسلام للزوج تأديب أهله إذا خاف نشوزهم.النشوز هو الإرتفاع و عدم طاعته ..
أولا بالموعظة ثم الهجر ثم الضرب غير المبرح الذي يؤذي المرأة كثيرا في نفسيتها ، فإن تراجعت فلا يبغي عليها سبيلا...هذه السلطة الممنوحة للرجل هي في مصلحته و مصلحة الزوجة و مصلحة الأسرة ككل لضمان استمراريتها و بقاءها.
Secularism, Liberalism etc these are all religions. And they have prophets , books, pagan followings everything bro. You have to understand
They criticize Islam because it shows our human flaws. Prefer to have a mindset as a perfect sinless beings. Hate to have someone to judge their actions. Having freedom to do whatever they want without someone to stop them.
Freedom of speech and women's rights on clear display
Daniel got them..😂
The same thing is going on in Bangladesh!
Because they're secular.
whats going on in bangladesh
@@twoplus7647you are too dumb to understand the problems in bangladesh
You have the best arguments against Liberalism
back then we call this Attitude or Ruthless Aggression
Man, I could listen to brother Daniel ALL DAY LONG! Ma Sha Allah, may Allah protect our brother and grant him success, ameen
حسبنا الله و نعم الوكيل
These liberal western society need to know: If the things u accuse of others is not true, it might as well be a confession about yourself. 😂
When u accuse someone, 1 finger is directed at other person but 4 fingers is directed at you
Looks like a scene from the movie “they live”.
2:16
Akhi, I laughed so much.🤣
May Allah protect you and preserve you my brother. Wallahi you are the best. May Allah keep you steadfast and benefit the Ummah more.
Keep spreading the truth and awareness brother Daniel
Allah is exposing their hypocracy and lies. Alhamdullilah.
Please make video on Nas Islam video
Brothers and Sisters if y’all didn’t fast today please try to fast tomorrow the day of Ashura and the day after that but if you fast today please fast on the day of Ashura because it take off all the minor sin of the previous year and if you missed some fast in Ramadan you can make the intention and add it to these two days and you will get the reward of Ramadan to. I love you all for the sake of Allah and may Allah Almighty untie us all in Jannah.
الذين ضل سعيهم في الحياة الدنيا وهم يحسبون أنهم يحسنون صنعا
They have always been hypocrites.
And worse morally despicable and disingenuous.
*Brother Daniel, please make an episode or at least have a reaction in your next episode on the issue of the French feminist so-called revert Mariam Francoise spreading nonsense about **_daaiis_** , Muslim men and Islamic marriage.*
May Allah guide us and her.
Cognitive dissonance at it's best
Hey brother Daniel please make a video about Bangladesh If you can. Things are getting brutal here and we need international support.
Very well said.
They can beat women to keep law and order for their ‘country’ which they aren’t really part of but you can’t do the same for your home
I have seen so much improvement in you Dan.
Asalamu alaikum everyone :)
The non-Muslim world needs a reformation.
الحمد لله على نعمة الاسلام
they were pointing 10 fingers at islam, n now what?
Thanks for saying as it is brother.
Despicable
May Allaah Protect You and Your Family, Brother Daniel. We Need More People Like You!! 💙🕋❤
😂😂😂😂😂 the hypocriete
👍👍👍👍👍
Jazak allah khyrain
Hypocrisy bruh nothing else lol
They are hypocrites looking to push islam away, they don't really believe ot practice any of what they preach.
Very good point Daniel
جزاك الله خيرا
Women police needed, but then they had to recruit women in police
Make Black And Blue Great Again
I have far more respect for your tradition when you own it. There are consequences for rebellious women. Good. I like Islam because of that.
Who said That Those police are atheists?
The system is atheist
It's secular law. They are practicing the secular laws.
Atheist/Christian/jew/hindu same thing
@@ThePaahchanSo what laws they should follow?christian laws?
Brother Daniel, please react to Nas Daily’s recent video on Islam. Jazakallah
As-salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah. Women should remain in homes
And they complain about wife beating!😂 Seriously 😅
tell us your opinion about the new app named the clear quran of sheikh omar
Subhanallah
React on nas daily
The police force is the only legitimate wielder of force according to the social contract theory (see Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau). Not the husband, not the father, but the police yes.
Yes, but that is not the core of his argument. I know many will think that your response is a complete rebuttal, but that just stems from a sh4llow understanding of the issue. A case of collective relativism.
In cases of resisting arrest and physical escalation involving a female perpetrator, you are arguing that such exception to the ideal (in this case, absolute pacifism) is valid due to the underlying utility. You believe people are free to think and choose for themselves, yet your people coerce others for viewing such as problematic. This hypocrisy is what what Daniel was demonstrating with his satire; he was saying that Muslims too can play that game. But as of now we will not *appear* winning had we done so, purely because america is still the hegemon with global monopoly of information and mass media.
And you americans would be surprised that there are other parts of the world where there is virtually zero chance for women to be physically hostile to authorities, let alone engage in battery. Meaning the need to account for the "possibility of female offenders being armed" is empirically nonexistent (unlike in your _civilized_ country). So it is sensible and perfectly justified for those people to form a consensus, at least for their own nation, that the extent of the "use of force" exercised by your police is unnecessary and b4rbaric (or at least an indicator of just how b4rb4ric your nation is). But no, your proud people insist that every other society's sociology is exactly like theirs, effectively rendering the purported _liberty_ for people think and choose for themselves as a sham (i.e. what your people really think is "people are _free_ to think and choose for themselves, but the correct way of thinking is ours and hence we are justified to badmouth your intellectually deficient self if you choose otherwise").
What the westerners also failed to comprehend, is that the same case can be made for the perceived _problematic_ Sharia laws. For example, on the restriction of immodest clothing; we argue that such is valid because we see the utility in remaining chaste (e.g. so married men doesn't have to deal with the psychological burden of subconsciously comparing his wife's sex appeal to the flaunting lady he saw on the street, or to prevent women from being on the receiving end of leers and ogling). We Muslims do not value the "freedom of self-expression" pertaining to this matter, because we as a collective have need for it. But *you* insist that your liberal idealism must trump the evidently pragmatic necessity of implementing such restriction. And your inability to value said utility of the law does not invalidate our valuation of it, nor does it in any objective way renders the law "immoral". Unless you assert yourself as a moral arbiter, which in our paradigm is the prerogative of only God; meaning *your moral supr3macist collective is playing God.*
This raises the philosophical question: how do you justify that your idealisms are worth to pursue? For all we know of your philosophy, the belief that your self-defined "freedom" is worth pursuing is merely a baseless assertion. Beneath all pretense, it is an argumentum ad populum which consequently suffers from relativist f4llacy. Therefore you have no justified grounds to *impose* your idealisms on us, yet you do.
The bottom line here is that Islam never obligated Sharia for non-Muslims. We just demand *real* sovereignty (not your _democracy_ ) over our own people and our own land. Yet your allegedly morally supreme selves gave us the exact opposite of it. For a century now.
Yes, but that is not the core of his argument. I know many will think that your response is a complete rebuttal, but that just stems from a sh4llow understanding of the issue. A case of collective relativism.
In cases of resisting arrest and physical escalation involving a female perpetrator, you are arguing that such exception to the relevant ideal (in this case, absolute pacifism) is valid due to the underlying utility. You believe people are free to think and choose for themselves, yet your people c0erce others for viewing such as problematic. This hyp0crisy is what what Daniel was demonstrating with his satire; he was saying that Muslims too can play that game. But as of now we will not *appear* winning had we done so, purely because america is still the hegemon with global monopoly of information and mass media.
And you americans would be surprised that there are other parts of the world where there is virtually zero chance for women to be physically hostile to authorities, let alone engage in battery. Meaning the need to account for the "possibility of female offenders being armed" is empirically nonexistent (unlike in your _civilized_ country). So it is sensible and perfectly justified for those people to form a consensus, at least for their own nation, that the extent of the "use of force" exercised by your police is unnecessary and b4rbaric (or at least an indicator of just how b4rb4ric your nation is), and lambast you for it. But no, your proud people insist that every other society's sociology is exactly like theirs, effectively rendering the purported _liberty_ for people think and choose for themselves a sham (i.e. what your people really think is "people are _free_ to think and choose for themselves, but the correct way of thinking is ours and hence we are justified to badmouth your intellectually deficient self if you choose otherwise").
What the westerners also failed to comprehend, is that the same case can be made for the perceived _problematic_ Sharia laws. For example, on the restriction of immodest attires; we argue that such is valid because we see the utility in remaining chaste (e.g. so married men doesn't have to deal with the psychological burden of subconsciously comparing his wife's sex appeal to the flaunting lady he saw on the street, or to prevent women from being on the receiving end of leers and ogling). We Muslims do not value the "freedom of self-expression" pertaining to this matter, because we as a collective subscribe to the axiology which has need for it. But *you* insist that we must c0nform to your paradigm, where your liberal idealism must trump the evidently pragmatic necessity of implementing such restriction. And you also failed to understand that your inability to value said utility of the aforementioned law does not invalidate our valuation of it, nor does it in any objective way renders the law "immoral". Unless you assert yourself as a moral arbiter, which in our paradigm is the prerogative of only God; meaning *your moral supr3macist collective is playing God.*
This raises the philosophical question: how do you justify that your idealisms are worth to pursue? For all we know of your philosophy, the belief that your self-defined "freedom" is worth pursuing is merely a baseless assertion. Beneath all pretense, it is an argum3ntum ad p0pulum which consequently suffers from relativist f4llacy. Therefore you have no justified grounds to *impose* your idealisms on us, yet you do.
The bottom line here is that Islam never obligated Sharia for non-Muslims. We just demand *real* sovereignty (not your _democracy_ ) over our own people and our own land. Yet your allegedly morally supreme selves gave us the exact opposite of it. For a century now.
Yes, but that is not the core of his argument. I know many will think that your response is a complete r3buttal, but that just stems from a sh4llow understanding of the issue. A case of collective relativism.
In cases of resisting arrest and physical escalation involving a female perpetrator, you are arguing that such exception to the relevant ideal (in this case, absolute pacifism) is valid due to the underlying utility. You believe people are free to think and choose for themselves, yet your people b3rate others for viewing such as problematic. This hyp0crisy is what what Daniel was demonstrating with his satire; he was saying that Muslims too can play that game. But we know as of now we cannot and will not *appear* winning had we done so, purely because america is still the h3gemon with global monopoly of information and mass media.
And you americans would be surprised that there are other parts of the world where there is virtually zero chance for women to be physically hostile to authorities, let alone engage in battery. Meaning the need to account for the "possibility of female offenders being armed" is empirically nonexistent (unlike in your _civilized_ country). So it is sensible and perfectly justified for those people to form a consensus, at least for their own nation, that the extent of the "use of force" exercised by your police is unnecessary and b4rb4ric (or at least an indicator of just how b4rb4ric your nation is). According to your epistemology, they should be justified to lambast you for it had they wish. But no, your proud people insist that every other society's sociology is exactly like theirs, effectively rendering the purported _liberty_ for people think and choose for themselves a sham (i.e. what your people really think is "people are _free_ to think and choose for themselves, but the correct way of thinking is ours, and hence we are justified to badmouth your intellectually deficient self if you choose otherwise").
What the westerners also failed to comprehend, is that the same case of exon3ration can be made for the perceived _problematic_ Sharia laws. For example, on the restriction of immodest attires; we argue that such is valid because we see the utility in remaining chaste (e.g. so married men doesn't have to deal with the psychological burden of subconsciously comparing his wife's sex appeal to the flaunting lady he saw on the street, or to prevent women from being on the receiving end of leers and ogling). We Muslims do not value the "freedom of self-expression" pertaining to this matter, because we as a collective subscribe to the axiology which has need for it. But *you* insist that we must c0nform to your paradigm, where your liberal idealism must trump the evidently pragmatic necessity of implementing such restriction. And you also failed to understand that your inability to value or comprehend said utility of the aforementioned law does not invalidate our valuation of it, nor does it in any objective way renders the law "immoral". Unless you assert yourself as a moral arbiter, which in our paradigm is the prerogative of only God; meaning *your moral supr3macist collective is playing God.*
This raises the philosophical question: how do you justify that your idealisms are worth to pursue? For all we know of your philosophy, the belief that your self-defined "freedom" is worth pursuing is merely a b4seless assertion. Beneath all pr3tense, it is an argum3ntum ad p0pulum which consequently suffers from relativist f4llacy. Therefore you have no justified grounds to *impose* your idealisms on us, yet you do.
The bottom line here is that Islam never obligated Sharia for non-Muslims. We just demand *real* sovereignty (not your _democracy_ ) over our own people and our own land. Yet your allegedly morally supreme selves gave us the exact opposite of it. For a century now.
Posting this again, since previous ones are still invisible on my screen.
Yes, but that is not the core of his argument. I know many will think that your response is a complete r3buttal, but that just stems from a sh4llow understanding of the issue. A case of collective relativism.
In cases of resisting arrest and physical escalation involving a female perpetrator, you are arguing that such exception to the relevant ideal (in this case, absolute pacifism) is valid due to the underlying utility. You believe people are free to think and choose for themselves, yet your people b3rate others for viewing such as problematic. This hyp0crisy is what what Daniel was demonstrating with his satire; he was saying that Muslims too can play that game. But we know as of now we cannot and will not *appear* winning had we done so, purely because america is still the h3gemon with global monopoly of information and mass media.
And you americans would be surprised that there are other parts of the world where there is virtually zero chance for women to be physically hostile to authorities, let alone engage in battery. Meaning the need to account for the "possibility of female offenders being armed" is empirically nonexistent (unlike in your _civilized_ country). So it is sensible and perfectly justified for those people to form a consensus, at least for their own nation, that the extent of the "use of force" exercised by your police is unnecessary and b4rb4ric (or at least an indicator of just how b4rb4ric your nation is). According to your epistemology, they should be justified to lambast you for it had they wish. But no, your proud people insist that every other society's sociology is exactly like theirs, effectively rendering the purported _liberty_ for people think and choose for themselves a sham.
(i.e. what your people really think is "people are _free_ to think and choose for themselves, but the correct way of thinking is ours, and hence we are justified to badmouth your intellectually deficient self if you choose otherwise")
What the westerners also failed to comprehend, is that the same case of exon3ration can be made for the perceived _problematic_ Sharia laws. For example, on the restriction of immodest attires; we argue that such is valid because we see the utility in remaining chaste (e.g. so married men doesn't have to deal with the psychological burden of subconsciously comparing his wife's sex appeal to the flaunting lady he saw on the street, or to prevent women from being on the receiving end of leers and ogling).
We Muslims do not value the "freedom of self-expression" pertaining to this matter, because we as a collective subscribe to the axiology which has need for it. But *you* insist that we must c0nform to your paradigm, where your liberal idealism must trump the evidently pragmatic necessity of implementing such restriction.
And you also failed to understand that your inability to value or comprehend said utility of the aforementioned law does not invalidate our valuation of it, nor does it in any objective way renders the law "immoral". Unless you assert yourself as a moral arbiter, which in our paradigm is the prerogative of only God; meaning *your moral supr3macist collective is playing God.*
This raises the philosophical question: how do you justify that your idealisms are worth to pursue? For all we know of your philosophy, the belief that your self-defined "freedom" is worth pursuing is merely a b4seless assertion. Beneath all pr3tense of reasoning, it is a gr0undless argum3ntum ad p0pulum which consequently suffers from relativist f4llacy. This is the epistemological problem which r4tionalism, 3mpiricism, and pr4gmaticism suffers from. Therefore you have no real nor justified grounds to *impose* your idealisms on us, yet you do.
The bottom line here is that Islam never obligated Sharia for non-Muslims. We just demand *real* sovereignty (not your _democracy_ ) over our own people and our own land. Yet your allegedly morally supreme selves gave us the exact opposite of it. For a century now.
Posting this again, since previous ones are still invisible on my screen.
Yes, but that is not the core of his argument. I know many will think that your response is a complete r3buttal, but that just stems from a sh4ll0w understanding of the issue. A case of collective r3lativism.
In cases of resisting arrest and physical escalation involving a female perpetrator, you are arguing that such exception to the relevant ideal (in this case, absolute pacifism) is valid due to the underlying utility. You believe people are free to think and choose for themselves, yet your people b3rate others for viewing such as pr0blematic. This hyp0crisy is what what Daniel was demonstrating with his satire; he was saying that Muslims too can play that game. But we know as of now we cannot and will not *appear* winning had we done so, purely because america is still the h3gemon with global mon0poly of information and m4ss m3dia.
And you 4mericans would be surprised that there are other parts of the world where there is virtually zero chance for women to be physically h0stile to authorities, let alone engage in battery. Meaning the need to account for the "possibility of female offenders being armed" is empirically nonexistent (unlike in your _civilized_ country). So it is sensible and perfectly justified for those people to form a consensus, at least for their own nation, that the extent of the "use of force" exercised by your police is unnecessary and b4rb4ric (or at least an indicator of just how b4rb4ric your people are overall). According to your epistemology, they should be justified to lambast you for it had they wish. But no, your proud people insist in their d3ni4l, that every other society's sociology is exactly like theirs. Effectively rendering their purported _liberty_ for people think and choose for themselves a sham.
(i.e. what your people really think is "people are _free_ to think and choose for themselves, but the correct way of thinking is ours, and hence we are justified to badmouth your intellectually deficient self if you choose otherwise")
What the westerners also failed to comprehend, is that the same case of exon3ration can be made for the perceived _problematic_ Sharia laws. For example, on the restriction of immodest attires; we argue that such is valid because we see the utility in remaining wholly chaste (e.g. so married men doesn't have to deal with the psychological burden of subconsciously comparing his wife's s3x appeal to the fl4unting lady he saw on the street, or to prevent women from being on the receiving end of l3ers and 0gling).
We Muslims do not value the "freedom of self-expression" pertaining to this matter, because we as a collective subscribe to the axiology which has no need for it. But *you* insist that we must c0nform to your paradigm, where your liberal idealism must trump the evidently pragmatic necessity of implementing such restriction. And you also failed to understand that your inability to value or comprehend said utility of the aforementioned law, does not invalidate our valuation of it, nor does it in any objective way renders the law "immoral". Unless you assert yourself as a moral arbiter, which in our paradigm is the prerogative of only God; meaning *your moral supr3macist selves, as a collective, is playing God.*
This raises the philosophical question: how do you justify that your idealisms are worth to pursue? For all we know of your philosophy, the belief that your self-defined "freedom" is worth pursuing is merely a b4seless assertion which you can regurgitate purely because of your imp3rial state backing. Beneath all pr3tense of reasoning, it is a gr0undless argum3ntum ad p0pulum which consequently suffers from r3lativist f4ll4cy. This is the epistemological problem which r4tionalism, 3mpiricism, and pr4gmaticism suffers from. Therefore you have no real nor justified grounds to *impose* your idealisms on us, yet you do.
The bottom line here is that Islam never obligated Sharia for non-Muslims. We just demand *real* s0vereignty (not your _d3mocracy_ ) over our own people and our own land. Yet your allegedly morally supreme selves gave us the exact opposite of it. For a century now.
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Aha I am the first to comment.May Allah Bless you brother Daniel..
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
lol
But we don’t condone violence, right? So, who cares!
It looks like you do, why aren’t you demanding your government to stop this?
V
👍
🤲
I have a hard time understanding why you're laughing honestly. Maybe I would understood if it was for example a protest for LGBT and the police displayed it's hypocrisy by beating up women... but it's not the case here ! Yes they are non-believers but there are still standing up for our brothers in Palestine, why is it funny to see people who are on our side being beaten up ?
Like if you want react vid to nas daily’s video on islam ☪️..
😂
❤❤❤
👍👍
Except the police were not striking women _because_ of their humanism, secularism or whatever you want to call it. It is police brutality, independent of any ideology. Islam, on the other hand, can motivate a neutral person to do cruel things _because of its content._ So can other religions.
Surah An-Nisa - 34 Try this verse Muslims
@@carolinebjerkelund767 Yeah, that's exactly what he's addressing in the video. Have you even understood his reference what he's saying?
@@mdfahd24 If a women is not lady like, she gets the boots to her, according to the Quran.
@@mdfahd24 Don't expect much from mor0ns like her. They don't bother watching the video. They just comment and run.
Beautiful verse
@@Dont-worry1618 You are sick
The difference is a "rebellious" incident in Islam could simply be a woman leaving the house unaccompanied, or uncovered, or being with a man she isn't married to.
This is part of the reason why having separate countries works so much better; just look at the formerly peaceful, high trust society of Sweden (and many other European majority countries) compared to now since trying this silly idea of multiculturalism.
So? You're shifting the goalposts.
Also, women can be beaten in secular societies for breaking public exposure laws. If she continues doing it when advised not to by police she can be violently arrested. This is your hypocrisy, unless you are that ignorant of the law.
You mean, like travelling abroad without a valid passport and visa?
@@lurdkatmin3298 That's the spirit- NEVER accept blame for your wrongdoings.
As I alluded to, if you stayed in Muslim countries we would both be happier.
What? Sweden has high ggggrape stats. Among top 10 in the World. How is that peaceful?
@@lylecrawford2794
What are you even talking about? You are the one who can't accept or admit to your own blatant ignorance and hypocrisy.
Did you ask each and every cop their religion? Or if they were even atheists? You are full of it
They are serving a secular republic with no state religion. Their personal beliefs aren't influencing their "jobs". You atheists always try to find excuse whenever someone points out atheist violence and terr0rism. "Oh the Soviet Union or China aren't atheist! Communism is their religion" BLA BLA BLA
The nypd are governed by secular atheistic laws. Women beating sanctioned by the Government.
@@AshrafAnam Russia is Orthodox Christian, has been for hundreds of years. Don't forget the Russian Jews and Muslims, while you are at it. And China are a majority of atheists, thank god.
@@abutalsafuba2179 No such thing as atheist laws
Regardless, we all know your argument is the typical "It's only OK when we do it" mental gymnastics when it comes to western authority and culture. "Not real secular humanism if they are not all secular humanists/supporters of such" nonsense yet they all follow guidelines written by Secular Humanists.
when you cant defend your religion so you deflect...
Double standards are not a deflect but a sad reality .
Women in Islam are beaten with a miswak ( a stick that is the size of a pen), and Islam is labelled as violent 🙄 what a hypocrite world 🌎 .
Touche. You just described the career of the proponents of the religion of liberalism (i.e. intellectual charlatans). How about we put you on the back foot for once? How about you solve your moral relativism first? Or better yet, the problems of your atheistic philosophy's epistemology? No, i doubt you can even manage that. I don't even think the laymen of you are aware of those problems. Yet you still have no shame in purporting yourselves as a _critical thinker._
EDIT: (even western) philosophers argued that the essence of religion is the belief in the transcendent, which *does not* allude to an explicity deity. The "transcendent" may come in the form of idea; an axiom. And proponents of liberalism itself (i.e. John Locke) asserts that liberty and human rights is an axiom (an unquestionable, purportedly self-evident belief). Which renders it just as much of a religion as that which they despise.
Daniel, I ask God everyday to bring you back to Shiism.
Shi'ism is false it's not supported by the quran and sunnah as a former shii myself i see shism false because no evidence for it like imamah Which has no bases in the quran
Making Dua for someone to leave Islam and into disbelief is CRAZY😭😭😭
you’re deluded
You should ask Allah for guidance, not misguidance. At the least you can ask Allah to guide towards the truth
you mean judaism?
As a feminist, you don't speak for us🤨
That makes sense, feminists usually lack basic reason and have comprehension issues
You dont speak for all Feminists either.
@@SJ-xb7lg true. Atheist have nothing to do with this either. Atheist fight for normal reasons, you fight because someone eats at ramadan!
@@adriankoh4859
Define normal
@@lurdkatmin3298 human rights, food crisis, water crisis, energy crisis, gas crisis, over population crisis, rich poor problems, science and truth, cancer, you know! adult problems! and this is religion's problem = kids fighting "wah, wah, wah🤧😭😢😥 we don't know everything. 😭" and this ="my next generation will solve who is the best religion and the next, and next, and next... Forever💀".
Ishowspeed and mrbeast. I think saying this help for the ref