Why are muslims so insecure about their faith?

Why are muslims so insecure about their faith? You never see anothe religion that is so strict about blasphemy and apostasy. In Malaysia, christians cannot use Allah to refer to God and have to say that their books are not for muslims, or God forbid, muslims might get confused or interested in chrstianity.
>Oh and by the way if you dare criticize anything we say you might get killed
Why is islam so authoritarian? Many muslims are boastful about their religion triumphing in the end but that feels to me like insecurity.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because the higher ups know the truth. The advancements in travel and communication shows allows European academics, not afraid to poke holes in the narrative, point out flaws in Islam. Unlike Christianity, that has endured and adapted around this, Islam has not been prepared to have this type of criticism. When you compare Christianity and Islam side-by-side, it’s the former that’s more rational and philosophically consistent.

    But because if they abandon Islam, they will lose their authority and power, they double down on Islam and force other Muslims to be isolated from such information.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      But isn't this bound to fail? Look at Iran right now. The country is going to be more secular than Turkey at this point with the fall of the regime, as it's a bottom up movement rather than a top down one.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        12. Most greedy and lower hungry people tend to not think of long-term consequences. Like any western politician, they’ll just withdraw their accounts and fly out to the next country.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I'm from Iran. Nobody really wants secularism. We want an end to corruption and an end to sanctions. The main failure of the Islamic Republic has been not realizing that Sunnis want nothing to do with us. That's what truly blackpilled us.
        Even if we liberate Palestine, Sunnis are going to hate us. So, is there a point? It's still a matter of national pride for me to alwaysstand up for the oppressed. But in practical terms, we are only suffering on behalf of people who hate us, and who would wipe us out given the chance.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          This the ayatollahs cringe sunni shia unity is an awful political choice. Frick that shit let shia be shia

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This. Islam is philosophically bankrupt when compared to Christianity and Judaism. Judaism probably has the most advanced philosophy if you include the Kabbalistic texts. Mainstream Islam rejected and ostracized the Sufis, who were the only muslims willing to construct a solid metaphysics.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      this, pisslam is inherently terrible and this is just the only way it can survive

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        not gonna bother reading all that and stopped halfway, the prophet attacked the Beni Qurayza because they conspired with Quraysh in the battle of the trench, all israelites had to do was literally do nothing, just don’t help anyone and in return the Muslims would protect them if someone attacked them, Beni Qurayza surrendered on the condition that Sa’d Ibn Mu’az judges them, which he said to kill the men and enslave the women and what not, they chose him, as for Khaybar, the prophet attacked them because the original israelites that fought him when he went to Medina first ran there and other than trying to assassinate him, they were one of the 3 parts of the alliance that attacked Medina in the battle of the trench, the treasurer he killed because he disavowed the agreement they made by hiding a bug part of the money, deal was they would give him all the money and he would let them go, he hid some of that so he was killed, he attacked Beni Mustilaq because they were planning a raid on him, the goal of the conquests was to create nation for Muslims and not have rerun of christians being hunted down for 100-200 years, and the other goal was to spread Islam, the prophet sent emissaries to Heraclius and Khosrau as to embrace Islam, Khosrau insulted the emissary and showed him the door and Heraclius refused because the empire wouldn’t accept it, but no keep posting this bullshit

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      /threadd

      Pisslam is a scam and all the higher ups knows it but most islamic countries are dictatorships and they derive their legitimacy from islam, as they are descendant of the false prophet muhammad. They can never let islam be criticized and done away with because if it did, their power will also vanishes.

      Christianity on the other hand have stood the trials of time and flourishes even among strict persecution and is fit for all people to follow it. No amount or cringy reddit tier straw-mans will be able to take it down. Pisslam on the other hand is easily falsifiable.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are muslims so insecure about their faith? You never see anothe religion that is so strict about blasphemy and apostasy.
    guess OP belongs to the tribe which writes god as g-d

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No, however I do like them more than christians and muslims. I have considered going towards them, but I don't have to commitment to learn hebrew, read the Talmud, eat kosher and so on, even as a conservative or moderate orthodox. Thing is, I doubt monotheism anyways and am open to pagan religions like hinduism, hellenism and kemetism

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >You never see anothe religion that is so strict about blasphemy and apostasy
    Why would you allow someone to insult your God? Would you allow someone to insult your mother or father as well?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I wouldn't fly a plane into a building if the landlord insulted my parents, no.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Christians bombed other countries including Christian countries for much less. Simply for material gain.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Simply for material gain.
          Atleast that's generic realpolitik.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        And one day, for no reason at all, people started becoming terrorists.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It was an inside job. Isntraeli secret services rigged 3 buildings with bombs for controlled demolition, so they could spread Islamophobia and invade Iraq

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The frame collapsed because of how the structure was built. Don't spread unproven conspiracy theories on Oyish. This isn't /misc/.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The 9/11 conspiracy discourrse is always weird to me. Instead of trying to see whether the US government helped Al-Qaida or something, or turned a blind eye to it (my definition of inside job), they invent wacky conspiracies of these massive buildings being secretly rigged with explosives. If you look at the south towar collapsing, it would very clearly show the floors buckling under the weight

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The US government was itself attacked at the Pentagon. These are nothing but conspiracy theories.

            Jews did the 9/11 look up "Dancing Israelis".

            There were many more dancing Muslims than dancing Israelis. You're twisting Muslim terrorism to suit your anti-Israel agenda.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I just said that they didn't hold water. Invading Afghanistan benefited the US in no way, it's something they were forced to do.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            We need to keep our troops fresh and our arms industry well-funded. Afghanistan was the perfect way to do this. We continued to make progress on the military front, while also creating a perpetual headache for Iran right on their borders. What more do you want?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Iran AND China AND Russia (through Central Asia). Most American decisions to go to war are made using geopolitical logic. Afghanistan itself doesn't have to be directly relevant.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >and then you lost

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How exactly did we lose? To say Afghans come anywhere near the might of the US military... I don't even know how to even respond to something so delusional.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >If you look at the south towar collapsing, it would very clearly show the floors buckling under the weight

            Except it doesn't.
            Nice try, glow in the dark!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Jews did the 9/11 look up "Dancing Israelis".

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >would you allow someone to insult your mother or father as well?
      If your first reaction to someone calling your mom a b***h is to violently ape out then I think that is indicative of your own insecurity, do you perhaps believe on some level that your mother just may be a b***h? If you KNOW the insults are bullshit, why does it matter? It’s just some ignorant asshat saying mean words, it does nothing, you should take the moral high ground and just move on with your day.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That leads to the death of emotion and devotion. One must be driven by emotion to some extent. It can't all be a calculation of cost and benefit. Half our brains are for logic and half are for emotions. Break the backs of those who insult Christ. Don't turn away and let it get worse and worse.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          lmao take a trip to italy mate

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Bending over
            Not being a hard trigger meathead is not "bending over". God i hate mudslimes.

            Aren't they winning? Haven't they been winning for the past 50 years? They haven't been saying opposing abortion or degeneracy is free speech. They've been chimping out whenever anyone opposes abortion or degeneracy. Is this not true?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >degeneracy
            Meme word in this context.
            Muslim degeneracy means giving women rights.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Break the backs of those who insult Christ.
          But that makes the world "worse and worse" because you will never convince everyone to convert.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Bending over for them isn't going to convince anyone either. One defends what one treasures. Showing you don't care just... shows you don't care. Shouldn't this be obvious?
            It won't get worse and worse. Hate speech is not free speech, just like pornography is not creative expression. Free speech should have boundaries - pornography, blasphemy are said boundaries.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Bending over
            Not being a hard trigger meathead is not "bending over". God i hate mudslimes.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Bending over
            Not being a hard trigger meathead is not "bending over". God i hate mudslimes.

            *hair trigger

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Free speech should have boundaries
            It's not free speech then, is it mate?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You'll just create a backlash and turn people away from your faitth. If the radical muslims who wanted to get rid of the "evil West" wanted to get their way, they would have tried to proselytise instead of resorting to violence

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            There are proselytizers. But the vast majority aren't going to be like that. The vast majority from any political grouping organize and make noisy protests. It's only Christians who don't do that. They do in the US, but definitely not in Europe.

            >degeneracy
            Meme word in this context.
            Muslim degeneracy means giving women rights.

            What rights are we talking about? Abortion is certainly not a right. That's something a Christian should agree with.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It is becauce I know that exist that I am motivated to argue and fight against with anyone who would say that. The reason you are unwilling to kill blasphemers and allow the entire town to insult your parents is because you think or know that everything they say is true so you're not motivated to fight with them.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It is becauce I know that they are wrong*

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Socially, Islam is like a military brotherhood. Apostasy from Islam is like deserting the army. Blasphemy is openly propagandizing against the wartime effort. The only reason killing apostates is seen as a problem is that we're not behaving like Muslims: we're not united and most of us have no military training. But if we actually behaved like Muslims and Islam became a 2.3 billion strong army, apostasy laws would make perfect sense.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >haha just let people openly mock you bro you're being oversensitive

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >However, this story has been rejected by most Muslim scholars mainly because of its lack of having any chain of narration and its complete absence from any authentic hadith. Some commentators have found it absurd that Muhammad would suddenly become aware of Zaynab's beauty one day after having known her all her life. If her beauty had been the reason for Muhammad to marry her, he would have married her himself in the first place rather than arranging her marriage to Zayd.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Actual story:
      Around 625 Muhammad proposed to Zaynab that she marry his adopted son, Zayd ibn Harithah. Zayd had been born into the Kalb tribe but as a child he had been kidnapped by slave-traders. He had been sold to a nephew of Khadija bint Khuwaylid, who in her turn had given him as a wedding present to her husband Muhammad. After some years, Muhammad had manumitted Zayd and had adopted him as his son.
      Zaynab, supported by her brother Abdullah, at first refused the proposal on the grounds that, "I am the widow of a Quraysh." She presumably meant that Zaynab's social status was too high to allow her to marry an ex-slave. It has been asserted that these social differences were precisely the reason why Muhammad wanted to arrange the marriage:
      "The Prophet was well aware that it is a person’s standing in the eyes of Allah that is important, rather than his or her status in the eyes of the people... their marriage would demonstrate that it was not who their ancestors were, but rather their standing in the sight of Allah, that mattered."
      It has also been suggested that he wanted to establish the legitimacy and right to equal treatment of the adopted. By contrast, Montgomery Watt points out that Zayd was high in Muhammad's esteem.
      "She can hardly have thought that he was not good enough. She was an ambitious woman, however, and may already have hoped to marry Muhammad; or she may have wanted to marry someone with whom Muhammad did not want his family to be so closely allied."
      When Muhammad announced a new verse of the Qur'an:
      It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error,
      Zaynab acquiesced and married Zayd. Muhammad personally paid the dower of 160 dirhams in cash, a cloak and veil, a coat of armour, 50 mudd of grain and 10 mudd of dates.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    .

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    OP these are features - not bugs. Islam's rise is often attributed to military success because when one of the kingdoms or something nearby was shopping for a religion - islam was the perfect warrior cult they were looking for.

    It produces the "perfect" non-questioning fanatical warrior force who have no attachment to life that deliberately spread by the sword.

    They were basically like those warriors for the dragon lady in game of thrones.

    As for what's the deal with modern muslims?

    A combination of colonial trauma and inferiority complexes. But on a psych level - when you are always a guilty sinner - you overcompensate by god worship.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Muslims usually have one of the two mentalities when they face the challenges to their society. By challenges I mean things like corruption, poverty, foreign invasion, and so on. The first mentality is to say they have challenges because they're backwards due to backwards traditions, lack of science and technology, and that the solution is to become enlightened nationalists like Bismarck and do the modernizing reforms and try to contain Islam's influence in society (whether the leaders are Muslims or not doesn't matter). Examples include Turkey, Egypt, Iraq during Saddam, Iran during the Shah, etc.

    The second mentality is to say they have challenges because people aren't faithful to orthodox Islam anymore. Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Islamists all over belong to this movement. Wahhabism is the most extreme group now.

    But I think the Muslim world is in a cycle. The rulers are often the most corrupt and least faithful Muslims, because they do all the hedonistic stuff (sex, money and drinking), but they would demand the lower classes stay faithful Muslims to prevent them from rising up. But eventually it gets so bad that some imams or clerics break away and turn on the rulers to lead the lower class to revolt in the name of true Islam.

    Once they succeed, they become the rulers and the cycle repeats itself, because all the problems still originate in the idea that Islam is perfect and doesn't need reform. To solve the problems, they need nationalism and industrialization. But this would bring another problem that goes beyond their control: intervention from the superpowers. So in a sense, Wahhabism is what the superpower wants to prevent Arabs from being united and intellectual. Wahhabists aren't the absolute enemy of those superpowers. They sort of co-exist to make sure the Arab world is split.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Modernization doesn't mean imitating the West in terms of their dress. Just read. Male or female, just read. Modern jihad is jihad of the mind in addition to jihad of the body.
      With regards to dress, dressing our queens like their prostitutes isn't going to add anything to society. Dress is one area where we are far ahead. Where we should never seek to imitate them.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I love how your only view of reform, modernisation, or building a stable society is reduced to loose dresses.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Look at the image he shared. Look at what I said. I said READ. Education is what matters. Social reforms only come from inferiority complexes.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Education is what matters.

            Mate, education doesn't exist in a vacuum.
            You need a high-trust society, which needs SOME social liberalism.

            Not Sweden, yes tier, but among other things, some freedom in that area.

            Or do you consider that pic, where you literally can't see anything outside of their hands, normal?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What does unveiling women have to do with the sciences or having a "high-trust society"?
            Yes, I consider that perfectly normal and ideal for a woman who is outdoors with strangers.
            If these women were all high-end researchers, you wouldn't have a problem with them.
            Thus, the problem is a lack of focus on education. More on integrating into the liberal world order.
            Why is my family full of millionaires so useless? Because they don't care about education.
            Even if you unveil them - some of them go unveiled - they'd still be completely useless.
            Sweden is good because Swedes are smart, not because of the way they dress.
            Cambodia's lack of clothes didn't help them progress. Nor did Guatemala's or Venezuela's.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, I consider that perfectly normal and ideal for a woman who is outdoors with strangers.

            Said literally no culture ever, before Islam came along.

            >Why is my family full of millionaires so useless? Because they don't care about education.
            No, it's because they have the vision of drunken mules, and ride off oil money.
            You don't have to be educated yourself to know in what to invest for long-term success.
            But you gays think ultra-piety replaces everything else.

            >Cambodia's lack of clothes didn't help them progress. Nor did Guatemala's or Venezuela's.

            Again, high-trust societies need multiple factors.
            You just try to dismiss everything else outside of some vaguely defined "education" as consisting solely of mini-skirts.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Hijab is pretty universal. Most Westerners used to wear hijab until around the 1920s as well.
            Or are you talking about niqab? israelites had niqab. So did Byzantines for their noblewomen.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No, some headcoverings existed, but not covering half the body.

            And it's funny how half those examples are part of the costumes of ascetics, very ironic examples for a religion that explicitly bans asceticism.

            >So did Byzantines for their noblewomen.

            Let me guess, you got that off an article which always quotes a book(i can't remember the name right now) which explicitly denies that article was comparable to the hijab?

            I assume you're British since you said m8. This is what England looked like a century ago, when you were the world's the dominant power.

            I'm not english, and we actually have some headcoverings are part of our folk costumes.

            But we've always considered how arabs did it to be full moron, even centuries ago, so no, it's not the same.

            Also, looping a 5 second clip of women WORKING IN THE COAL INDUSTRY covering their hair(and not even all of them), is the most desperate attempt i've ever seen at an equivocation.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Apparently, it's cotton, not coal.
            The point still applies.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >ascetics
            In those religions, the only ones following any rules are the ascetics. Also, we can be ASCETIC, just not ASCETICS. Spiritual poverty is a thing.
            >clip
            There are many more clips if you want. I gave you a five second clip because that's enough to make my point. It was also cotton, not coal.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            All cotton miners btw

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What's a "cotton miner"?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            apparently women who cover their heads according to

            No, some headcoverings existed, but not covering half the body.

            And it's funny how half those examples are part of the costumes of ascetics, very ironic examples for a religion that explicitly bans asceticism.

            >So did Byzantines for their noblewomen.

            Let me guess, you got that off an article which always quotes a book(i can't remember the name right now) which explicitly denies that article was comparable to the hijab?

            [...]
            I'm not english, and we actually have some headcoverings are part of our folk costumes.

            But we've always considered how arabs did it to be full moron, even centuries ago, so no, it's not the same.

            Also, looping a 5 second clip of women WORKING IN THE COAL INDUSTRY covering their hair(and not even all of them), is the most desperate attempt i've ever seen at an equivocation.

            and

            Apparently, it's cotton, not coal.
            The point still applies.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That's a woman wearing old-timey clothes. Modern trad wives would look like picrel. Looks eerily similar to my sister, lol.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >picrel
            Where I'm from, that woman would be a red flag for still showing her hair while wearing a scarf and showing her forearms. But considering the quality of girls in the Christians countries, this is perhaps the best they can do.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That's the best I could find from a Christian country. I'm just saying the type of dress today would be more modern. Not similar to the picture you shared.

            No, you don't understand.

            There is some references or drawings or pics of women wearing something on their hair, so that means the entire world dresses like this until the Middle Ages.

            You realize the ones wearing niqab do it as a status symbol, right? My husband is so rich and powerful no man gets to look at me, I don't have to work, etc. What's wrong with that? They dress in normal clothes with their relatives so it's not like they cover their faces 24/7 or something.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No, you don't understand.

            There is some references or drawings or pics of women wearing something on their hair, so that means the entire world dresses like this until the Middle Ages.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >that means the entire world dresses like this until the Middle Ages.
            Misrepresentation and strawman. But it is true that, in all of time, Muslim women have always been the most modest and pious of all women.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >explicitly bans asceticism
            ah yes, as we all know islam bans zuhd

            >But we've always considered how arabs did it to be full moron, even centuries ago, so no, it's not the same.
            Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.(1 Corinthians 11)

            Western Christians observed this until the Early Modern Period

            >There are many more clips if you want

            Yeah, you had to honeycomb centuries of footage to make some super short clips of women wearing shawls.

            Seriously, by that logic, you could say some british men also wore hijab, since the original kilt covered you fully, depending on the situation.

            Again, desperate projection.

            >ah yes, as we all know islam bans zuhd

            "But our closest equivalent for our female clothes are outfits used by monastics that the interactions they have is with fellow monastics of the same sex. And sometimes, not even that"

            >But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head

            I don't know why you b***h about your family not being educated, if you can't understand a simple text.

            As i said, i know headscarves are a thing, since "headcoverings are part of our folk costumes", but even back then, arabs were known for going full moron about it, by everyone else.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why would you be this proud of showing your women to strangers?? Are you some kind of cuckhold?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            IDK what you're arguing against. Women clearly dressed modestly into the 1930s. Look up any street video from the period. You can read more about it more here.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_head_covering

            I don't know what The Hills Have Eyes incestuous marriage you were born from, if you are unable to comprehend and debate on the fact that everyone makes fun of your asses for going full moron on the subject, and instead you double down on your "here is proof headscarves existed, that means the entire world looked like Saudi Arabia meets Afghanistan until recently" mental moronation.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So, your problem is with not with the hijab, right? Headscarves and modesty don't hold society back, agreed?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Again, going full moron on anything holds back society, but you don't comprehend any sort of ideas that aren't braindead simple, so it's pointless to talk to you.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Are you against headscarves or not? Is it just covering the face you have an issue with or headscarves and modesty in general?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Point proven.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            We can get into your "nuanced philosophy" in a bit. At least answer this question. If you have no issue with hijab, what liberal values are you proposing?
            Remember, the original supposition is that we have to liberalize if we are to make progress. Does covering your hair prevent progress or not?
            Ironically, most high achieving women tend to wear hijab or niqab. The ones obsessed with looks and dressing up are the most braindead.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >We can get into your "nuanced philosophy" in a bit.
            No, we won't.

            Once again, you seem to have an aneurysm trying to understand "nuanced philosophy" terms like "going full moron", and your attempt at equivocation is painful af.

            Sit down, you failed.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How am I supposed to understand what "going full moron" means if you don't tell me? Is it the headscarf? Is it niqab? Is it modesty in general?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >the entire world looked like Saudi Arabia meets Afghanistan until recently" mental moronation.
            The "Christian" world

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't know what The Hills Have Eyes incestuous marriage you were born from

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            IDK what you're arguing against. Women clearly dressed modestly into the 1930s. Look up any street video from the period. You can read more about it more here.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_head_covering

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >explicitly bans asceticism
            ah yes, as we all know islam bans zuhd

            >But we've always considered how arabs did it to be full moron, even centuries ago, so no, it's not the same.
            Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.(1 Corinthians 11)

            Western Christians observed this until the Early Modern Period

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I assume you're British since you said m8. This is what England looked like a century ago, when you were the world's the dominant power.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Islam is an entirely manufactured faith. It was purposely engineered to value submission to worldy authority over all else.
    For Christ's sake it's literally called "Slavery."

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *