MaxInDHouse: So please stop quoting or mentioning me since that's what you demanded from me. I only relate with REPUTABLE INDIVIDUALS. Meanwhile anytime you mention or quote me i will bring back that comment as your own quote therefore if you want to bury it try never quoting or mentioning me on this forum again.
Farewell! 🥱
Will you sharrap and kneel down at once, how dare you address your elder, prince and imperial master in such a careless manner.
MaxInDHouse: I'm not asking you whether you respect a group or not that's your own personal business what i hate is when you are quoted as a REPUTABLE INDIVIDUAL for others to see what we are trying to establish but you then come up complaining about being quoted then whatever you say or type is no longer to be considered as you cannot stand up for it.
Quote me a million times anywhere because whatever i've said remains my word anytime, anywhere and before anybody!
See what a real man said when a group of hopeless men wanted him to shy away from his own words:
“What I have written, I have written.” John 19:22
But when you are ashamed of your own comment then you're not in anyway reputable before me.
So continue arguing aimlessly with whoever takes you seriously as for me please stop quoting or mentioning me that's what you say to me therefore obey your own rule at least!🥱
At least the spamming has stopped. Thank you for that. Good day.
MaxInDHouse: Do you know what it means when you shy away from your own comment? Why do you think politicians have issues with comments? Well it's because people do quote them later so if you can't stand up for what you said with your own mouth or what you typed with your own fingers surely you shouldn't be welcomed in the gathering of people commenting on serious matters.
That is what you have become to me so keep on arguing aimlessly without being accountable for whatever you type which you could deny anytime!🥱
I stand by my comment. I enjoyed my time with JWs and have huge respect for them still. I have told you my issues, which include the matter of shunning, something which has broken many familes.And my irritation has long been that you answer every criticism by going to produce quotes of where you or JWs were praised. And you do this ad infinitum ad nauseum.
QuinQ: Neither do humans. See, you must first define "think". Example: don't think of pink elephant. Your mind immediately produces a pink elephant. Thoughts happen. You can force yourself to focus on certain thoughts - so can AI
You are gravely mistaken. Accept the schooling provided by LordReed and KnownUnknown. AI works with prompts and will produce based on programming. By contrast, you have an imagination.
QuinQ: Of course we could be (see screenshorr above). just as extremely complex AI will think it has "true" consciousness while the simpler systems it creates doesn't!
MaxInDHouse: Please i hate irreputable people so if you are not sure of what you want to say don't mention me again because i love people who always stand up for whatever they say not those who are ashamed of being quoted!🥱
KnownUnknown: AI doesn’t know anything. It’s a computer programmed to perform certain tasks. It doesn’t “think”, it is not “intelligent”, it is not ever going to be conscious, IT’S JUST A COMPUTER.
What it regurgitates is the data it has been programmed with or it performs a function it has been programmed to do. They claim they don’t know how it works because they think obscurantism and ambiguity sells the mystery of the “artificial intelligence”.
If you programmed a chatbot (or “train” it like the disingenuous clowns say) with the Marvel Comics universe and instruct it that it’s real, it would tell you the exact date and time Thanos snapped half the morons in the world out of existence.
IsraeliAIRFORCE: Blaspheming and speaking ill of Allah doesn't attract a death penalty, but questioning the excesses of Mohammed is blasphemy and worthy of death. What insanity.
Gemini Says:
The claim that Islamic law distinguishes between speaking ill of Allah and questioning the Prophet Muhammad in a way that excuses the former while executing for the latter does not accurately reflect traditional Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh).
In classical Islamic law, blasphemy against Allah (sabb Allah) and blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad (sabb al-rasul) are both treated as grave capital offenses, though traditional schools of law differ on procedural mechanics such as repentance and state enforcement.
1. Traditional Islamic Legal Stance (Fiqh) In traditional Sunni and Shia jurisprudence, blaspheming Allah and insulting the Prophet Muhammad are viewed with equal or near-equal gravity, as both strike at the foundational core of the faith.
Blasphemy Against Allah (Sabb Allah):
Classical consensus across the four Sunni legal schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali) considers insulting Allah to be an act of absolute disbelief (kufr).
Under traditional penal codes (hudud or ta'zir), it carries the death penalty for a Muslim offender (treated as apostasy) and, in many classical opinions, for a non-Muslim residing in Islamic territory if it violates their covenant.
In the Hanafi school, an individual who repents from blaspheming Allah is granted an opportunity to recant, which commutes the capital sentence.
Blasphemy Against Prophet Muhammad (Sabb al-Rasul):
Insulting or disparaging the Prophet is likewise considered a capital crime by classical jurists.
Major legal scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah (in his treatise Al-Sarim al-Maslul 'ala Shatim al-Rasul), argued that while an offense against Allah involves a "Right of God" (Haqq Allah)—which God may forgive if the offender repents—an offense against the Prophet involves a "Right of Man" (Haqq al-'Abd). Because the Prophet is no longer alive to grant personal forgiveness, scholars like those in the Maliki and Hanbali schools argued that repentance does not automatically commute the worldly capital punishment administered by the state.
This distinction in classical legal theory regarding whether the death penalty could be commuted by repentance is often where the perception arises that insulting the Prophet is treated more strictly than insulting Allah.
2. The Quranic and Reformist Counter-Perspective Modern Islamic scholars, reformists, and human rights advocates dispute the classical legal justification for any state-enforced capital punishment for speech offenses:
Absence of Capital Punishment in the Quran: The Quran explicitly mentions people mocking Allah, His revelations, and His prophets, but it nowhere prescribes a worldly death penalty or physical legal punishment for blasphemy. Instead, it instructs believers to show patience, avoid sitting with mockers, or leave judgment to God in the afterlife (e.g., Quran 4:140, 6:68, 73:10).
Historical Context of Execution Orders: Scholars who oppose blasphemy laws note that historical incidents where the Prophet ordered executions involved individuals who committed acts of treason, espionage, or active warfare against the early Medina state during wartime, rather than mere verbal dissent or theological questioning.
3. Societal Impact and Legal Realities From the standpoint of social outcomes, legal stability, and human well-being:
State-Sanctioned Violence vs. Free Inquiry: Capital laws against blasphemy—whether aimed at protects of divine authority or prophetic reverence—create systemic harm. They suppress open intellectual discourse, inhibit historical inquiry, and generate widespread fear, which hinders the overall intellectual and social progress of a society.
Vulnerability to Abuse: Severe blasphemy laws are frequently weaponized by states, extremist factions, or individuals to settle personal disputes, target religious minorities, suppress political opposition, and bypass due process.
Mob Violence and Public Order: The enforcement or perception of blasphemy laws often catalyzes extrajudicial killings, vigilante violence, and civil unrest. Decoupling critical speech and theological questioning from capital punishment promotes public safety, preserves human life, and fosters social cohesion.
GreenCovering: My dear brother, that is how the OP wants to wire your reasoning. He wants to constrain your reasoning to one perspective. Because if we begin to go into the confirmed praises that set the Holy Prophet Muhammad apart from all other creations, we will discover that what the OP presented are trivial compared to those ones and never should have be brought as bases for saying that the Prophet were being overpraised by them. Anyway, but I believe you are more knowledgeable than the estimate conveyed in this post but want to keep the discussion open, which is good.
I am not a Muslim and do not believe in any Abrahamic religion. I say that the OP is good because of the tendency to deify prophets and religious leaders just as Jesus and Buddha and many others have been deified.
Image123: Which people? These guys are not serious or real. He has clearly shown you expo of where he doesn't need to visit to win or lose. He's winning Osun, Ekiti, Ogun, Ondo, Kwara. Men dey as i heard. He'll be in Oyo and Lagos to wake them up. He's visiting Rivers just to honour Wike. The rest is in the Wike's hands, including FCT. Most of the Northern visits are show of force, and a little politics. January is done and dusted, except something extraordinary happens.
It is extremely unlikely to impossible that this particular president will have a result announced that is not his victory. The worst that can happen is that people record and follow the votes dligently such that the real results are known regardless of what INEC announces. In that event, if it happens that one of the opposition candidates is the real calculated winner, there may be some unreast, but thats about all. INEC will still announce BAT.
At the real root though, is the failure of Atiku and Obi to sacrifice and / or unite. That alone is at the real root of the matter and for that reason alone, they should not cry whan BAT is announced.
GreenCovering: The agenda to strip the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) of his honour and status and to eventually openly disrespect him did not start today. It is engineered from within Islam itself and is actively supported by outside collaborators.
Can you point out any of the things said in the OP concerning over-praise of the Prophet that is wrong?
In Islam, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ holds the highest rank among creation as the final Messenger of Allah. Loving and respecting him is an essential part of faith. However, Islam also warns against overpraising or attributing to the Prophet ﷺ things that go beyond what is established in the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah. This post explores the types of overpraising, Islamic teachings on the matter, and scholarly positions, with examples of common exaggerated claims.
Examples of Overpraising the Prophet ﷺ 1. Claiming the Prophet ﷺ was the first creation or created from light: Some say the Prophet was the first being created or that he was created from divine light, and that all other creation came from his light.
2. Saying the universe or world was created specifically for the Prophet ﷺ: Claims that the entire cosmos exists solely for the Prophet’s sake, beyond the general purpose of creation.
3. Saying the Prophet ﷺ had no shadow: Since every object under light casts a shadow, some claim the Prophet ﷺ does not have a shadow, implying a supernatural exception.
4. Saying flies are not attracted to the Prophet ﷺ: This is a popular myth suggesting that flies avoid the Prophet ﷺ, implying a miraculous protection from natural phenomena.
5. Other exaggerated praises: Attributing divine qualities or supernatural powers to the Prophet ﷺ that contradict Islamic monotheism (Tawhid).
Islamic Stance on Overpraising the Prophet ﷺ Allah commands believers to love and respect the Prophet ﷺ but within limits: “Say, [O Muhammad], ‘If you should love Allah, then follow me, so Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.’” (Surah Aal-Imran 3:31)
The Prophet ﷺ himself warned against exaggeration: “Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians exaggerated in praising Jesus, son of Mary. I am only a servant, so say, ‘The servant of Allah and His Messenger.’” (Sunan al-Nasa’i, Hadith 3637)
The Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever exaggerates in praising me, let him take his seat in Hellfire.” (Sunan al-Darimi, Hadith 2283)
He also said: “Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians exaggerated in praising the son of Mary.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 3371)
Islamic scholars emphasize that while the Prophet ﷺ deserves the highest respect and love, exaggeration leads to shirk (associating partners with Allah) or at least to bid’ah (innovation). Scholars warn that attributing divine or supernatural qualities to the Prophet ﷺ that are not supported by the Qur’an and Sunnah distorts the pure Islamic belief in Tawhid.
For example: The claim that the Prophet ﷺ was the first creation or created from light is rejected because Allah in the Qur'an states that He created the heavens and the earth and all between them (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:29), and the Prophet ﷺ himself is a created human like others.
The idea that the universe was created solely for the Prophet ﷺ exaggerates his status beyond what Allah teaches:
“And We did not create the heaven and earth and that between them in play.” (Surah Al-Anbiya 21:16) The purpose of creation is to worship Allah alone (Surah Adh-Dhariyat 51:56).
Claims like “the Prophet has no shadow” or “flies do not land on him” are unsupported by authentic texts and often come from folklore or weak narrations.
Why Avoid Overpraising? **It preserves the purity of Tawhid (monotheism) by keeping the Prophet ﷺ in his rightful place as a servant and messenger of Allah. **It prevents innovation in religion, which the Prophet ﷺ warned against. **It maintains respect for the Prophet ﷺ without attributing falsehoods that can mislead others.
Loving and honoring the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is a fundamental part of Islam, but it must be balanced with truth and authenticity. Overpraising or attributing exaggerated qualities to him goes against the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah and risks leading to serious theological errors. Muslims are encouraged to follow the Prophet ﷺ as the servant and messenger of Allah, loving him sincerely and respectfully without exaggeration.
May Allah guide us to the correct understanding and love of His Messenger ﷺ, and protect us from exaggeration and error. Ameen.
QuinQ: Thank you very much for the video but it is extremely simplistic and therefore not factual. Like I've told you before, I have heard one of the pioneers and vanguard of AI interviewed and directly heard him say that no one understands exactly how AI works. Which is supported by the screenshots below. How does AI know to the second what time it is if it is trained only once? How is it so current about everything that is going on to the second? Also, the reference for this video is 2020, over 6 years ago, when AI people had 10 fingers and you can instantly tell if something was AI. Finally, based on ideas from this video, think of a question you will ask AI that you can trick it into getting wrong. bolabizzle, DeepSight, MaxInDHouse, kingxsamz, KnownUnknown, musicwriter
Try asking questions on deep humanities such as religious sensitivities and radicalism. Quite often it will eithere decline to answer or give a very politically correct neutral statement which is nothing. Also a lot always depends on the framing of a question. Two people on two sides of an argument can fram questions cleverly enough for the AIs to agree with both sides.
Also in matters of intricate nuance, humans are key. Noy to talk about something like politics.
And God forbid the matter dwells on emotion and deep psychology.
AI is very useful, but is no where near what can be described as ïntelligent" yet in the real sense. Think of it as a tool for gathering and organising information fast. As things go along though, it will have to be strongly regulated to avoid many dangers. Especially on ethical matters.
Unbiased1: There is no evidence to proof that Pakistan collaborates with any terrorist group. Iran openly associates with its terror proxies and even includes them in agreements.
I would never ever had believed, as it has fully turned out, that you just parrot anything the Western Media feeds you.
Unbiased1: The U.S. can't police everyone. There weren't even able to police Iran until Israel forced them into it. The U.S. failed to stop the countries you mentioned from getting nuclear weapons, should they also fold their hands and watch Iran get a nuclear weapon? North Korea, Pakistan, and India do not have proxies that could use these weapons on other countries on their behalf, but Iran has a good number of proxies that could use these Nuclear weapons. Iran is a bigger threat and thank God they do not already have a nuclear weapon.
1 - There was nothng they could do to stop the NK program. 2. Pakistan doesnt have proxies? Joker. You cant even remember where Bin Laden was hiding obviously.
Unbiased1: Just like the U.S. will avoid any military confrontation with a super power, that is how other super powers are also avoiding any confrontation with the U.S. China has vowed to invade Taiwan if the Taiwanese people do not willingly join mainland China. The only reason China is yet to invade is because they do not know the amount resistance the U.S. may put in based on the defence agreement between Washington and Taipei. When Iran and Venezuela were attacked by the U.S., we all expected a Russian or Chinese military response, but none came. Now, the U.S. is fully emboldened to do same to Cuba because they know that Russia and China are not willing to risk a confrontation with the U.S. for any reason. @DeepSight
Now I know you truly know nothing. I will not bother since I have seen the bold. Only people smoking weed on Mars would even think that there would have been any Russian or Chinese military response over Venezuela. Go and school up and come back in ten years.
PS: There has nonetheless been assistance in the case of Iran which is why it has stood, just as Ukraine has only stood because of assistance from the West.
Omnitetris64: We quote Meditations constantly. It is worth knowing what the book actually is.
Marcus Aurelius never called it Meditations. He never gave it a title at all. That word was put on the cover by an English scholar, Meric Casaubon, when he published it in 1634 — more than fourteen hundred years after Marcus died.
And the text reads like it. He refers to events in his own life without ever explaining what they were. He uses technical Stoic terms and never defines a single one. He was not explaining anything to a reader. He already knew. He was reminding himself.
Two of the twelve books still carry a note of where they were written: one on campaign among the Quadi, by a river in what is now Slovakia, the other at Carnuntum, a fort on the Danube. A man at war, writing at night, to nobody.
Then almost no trace of it for centuries. Around the year 900 a bishop, Arethas, writes that his copy is — his words — so old it is altogether falling to pieces, and that he has had it copied out. That copy is now lost too.
Everything we quote comes down to two manuscripts. One was printed in the 1550s and then vanished. The other sits in the Vatican, damaged, with about forty lines simply fallen out of it.
So the calm, certain philosopher-king on your timeline is partly a reconstruction. The real one wrote the same lessons over and over, because the reminding was the whole point.
You were never the audience. You are reading over his shoulder.
Omnitetris64: Worth adding that Eliot used the line twice, and the first time was not in a poem. It appears in Murder in the Cathedral (1935), which predates Burnt Norton, in a play about a man walking knowingly towards his own killing. That origin sharpens it a great deal. It is not a general remark about human frailty; it is said in the presence of a death everyone in the room can see coming and nobody will look at directly.
The other detail people tend to skip is that in Burnt Norton the line is not the poet's own. It is given to the bird, right after "Go, go, go, said the bird" - the warning is aimed at the human party from outside it, which is a colder reading than the consoling one usually taken from the quote.
DeepSight, on the Kundera point - the asymmetry that interests me is that we are actually rather good at bearing suffering. Suffering has weight, and it gives you something to push against. What seems to be genuinely unbearable is the lightness: a reality that is fully real and still refuses to resolve into meaning.
Everything you have written is beyond profound. The last line the most. Thank you.
LordReed: A quote by the author T. S. Eliot. This line appears in Eliot’s poem Burnt Norton, the first of his Four Quartets, where he meditates on time, memory, and the tension between temporal experience and a transcendent “still point”. The phrase suggests that humans often avoid or soften the harshness of reality because fully perceiving it, its impermanence, suffering, and complexity, can be overwhelming. Eliot explores how consciousness is limited, and how people rely on art, faith, and imagination to approach truths that might otherwise be unbearable.
What do you think about the statement?
CC: budaatum, DeepSight
Excellent! I would go so far as to say we cannot deal with the "unbearable lightness of being" - I steal words by Milan Kundera. The sheer ineffable fact of our very consciousness, is an existential challenge.
maasoap: Laughing. The same USA that its war with Iran has depleted its arsenal far beyond the acceptable level or another USA? The USA that has diverted most its air defence system in Asia to the gulf region? The same USA that couldn't defend its bases in the gulf because it has ran out of defensive missiles. As it is, another war in a new front involving USA will collapse its military and expose a lots of weaknesses
When someone like Unbiased1 has been brainwashed, do you expect him to even contemplate these? He probably believes Trump can defeat God in heaven.
Mirasteel: When I tell others that most Nigerians are plain evil they think I am lying.
Its just pure religious brainwashing. As far as they are concerned, Israel is always right. If Israel says today that Nigeria should be wiped out, dont be surprised most of them will defend Israel. Unbiased1, na lie? You no go side Israel?
Christianity Etc › Re: Why Is Jesus Not Included In Academic History Books? by DeepSight(m): 10:32am On Oct 18
