I will not be subject to sharia law

[Myst]

They know facts that alot of muslims didnt know.
Therefore saying no knowledge is not even a little true. You later said a little knowledge. Even that is infinitely more reasonable than no knowledge.

Again, figure of speech but maybe I was too harsh and for that, I'd like to apologize.

 

[Myst]

I watched the video so I dont have to read/respond to your major response

And what is your response to said video?

 

[Myst]

Again, figure of speech but maybe I was too harsh and for that, I'd like to apologize.

I'd also like to re-state the fact that you can't compare them to laymen.

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

And what is your response to said video?

Im starting to get tired. Id like to set up some rules for discussing islam with you. Id like to read respond to only one islamic post in a day,

PART 2:


"But al-tabari was a muslim historian?" You’re absolutely right that al-tabari was a Muslim historian, but his work is often considered reliable for several reasons, even when analyzing Islamic history from a scholarly, secular perspective. Let me list them:

• Historical Objectivity:​

  While al-Tabari was a Muslim scholar, his approach to history was rigorous and aimed at compiling multiple sources, both Islamic and non-Islamic. Al-Tabari didn't just record the Islamic narrative; he often presented multiple versions of events, some of which were contradictory. This method allowed readers to see different perspectives, including those that were more critical of Islam.
  
  
  Al-Tabari aimed to present a balanced historical account, and his works include narratives from a variety of sources. For example, when discussing early Islamic history, he references Jewish, Christian, and Persian sources, in addition to Islamic traditions. This makes his work particularly useful for understanding the history from various perspectives.
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Sources and Documentation:​

  Al-Tabari’s "History of the Prophets and Kings" (also known as "Tarikh al-Rusul wa’l-Muluk") is an extensive compilation of earlier works. He cites and cross-references his sources carefully, which adds credibility to his work. He didn't simply record what he had heard but gathered reports from earlier scholars and historians.
  
  
  In cases where he was unable to verify certain details, he would state the source of the report, allowing readers to assess the reliability of the information themselves. This transparency is one of the reasons why scholars from various backgrounds respect his work.
  
  
  

  Use by Secular Historians:​

  Many non-Muslim historians and scholars of Islamic studies cite al-Tabari’s work because of its methodological approach to history. While al-Tabari’s religious views do play a role in his perspective, his work is not overtly biased or apologetic. Modern scholars often compare his reports with other sources to verify their accuracy, and al-Tabari’s accounts are generally found to be corroborated by other historical documents, especially when it comes to the general events and milestones of early Islamic history.
  
  
  

  Contextual Analysis:​

  Al-Tabari didn’t simply record events; he analyzed them within their historical, cultural, and political contexts. For example, when describing the battles and wars of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), he didn’t just talk about military tactics but also the social and religious impacts of these events. This broader context helps historians assess the motivations and consequences of these events in a way that isn’t strictly limited to the religious narrative.
  
  
  

  Historical Continuity:​

  Al-Tabari's work is valuable because it provides a continuity of Islamic history and includes key figures, places, and events that are corroborated by other historians, both Muslim and non-Muslim. His work is often compared with that of other early Islamic historians and scholars like Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa'd, and others to cross-check the details. This cross-referencing approach gives a fuller picture of early Islamic history and allows scholars to validate his accounts.
  
  
  

  Critical Readings of Early Islam:​

  In his work, al-Tabari does present some critical perspectives, even about the early Muslim community. While his narrative is supportive of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and the early Islamic community, al-Tabari doesn’t shy away from recounting the challenges and internal conflicts faced by early Muslims, including disputes over leadership and the political struggles that occurred after the Prophet’s death.
  
  
  
  
  Hence, using the given evidence and reasoning, prophet muhammad (SAW/PBUH) was NOT a "warlord".

I guess this is about the maximum size I will accept i assume you wouldn't want me messaging you with anything bigger aswell? Are there any other rules you will like to add to the rules?

As you said before you said you want to give the full info. you can release part 2 the next day. I might not even have that much I want to say. i know it might feel limiting but I will be overwelmed.

 

[Myst]

Im starting to get tired. Id like to set up some rules for discussing islam with you. Id like to read respond to only one islamic post in a day,

I guess this is about the maximum size I will accept i assume you wouldn't want me messaging you with anything bigger aswell? Are there any other rules you will like to add to the rules?

As you said before you said you want to give the full info. you can release part 2 the next day. I might not even have that much I want to say. i know it might feel limiting but I will be overwelmed.

No problem.

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

No problem.

Ok I will respond to the video tomorrow

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

If you're too lazy to read then here:

So theres the definitions
Your Mohammad, used military might to gain power, You claim he gained power in medina peacefully
Yes he was a political success, i think i remember.
But he spreads by the sword.


Your Mohammad has a trained army? I say that claiming he did not have a trained army is semantical because of on the job experience
To say that they never had proper training and did not know how to fight after so many armed conflicts is absurd

their actions are based on self interest not ideology? Well to say they are might be rude, but I will give it my best shot

Through the spoils of war, it is noted that "the spoils of war has been made Halal (lawful) for me", indicating a clear connection between military success and material rewards.


A meme I made

The success of Islam is often attributed more to its political strategies than purely religious motivations, suggesting that material gain played a crucial role in its expansion

Their leadership is tied to charisma and patronage: see my previous answer

I dont want to dissect the last qualification he mentions because its waay too deep to discuss IMO. Atleast for a novice like me.

Muhammad Hijab is abusing his debate with an empty chair. IMO but thats because i disagree maybe

His explaining how Jesus might not be a figure of peace under some explanation is hilarious but acceptable
Christians view wrath is for god and not for man though.

He challenges to to find a place in scripture where its says its ok to slay categories of people sheep, cattle, and camel. Now this was really eye opening for me. I have long thought that the muslim treated the kaffir as domestic animals but I did not know that they were divided into animal categories.

He forbids killing women and children?
God bless, they get to be the slaves of those who bear the true religion in their heart

Muhammad Hijab talks about the only time Jesus used violence as an example of a Violent Jesus. Its really funny for him to make this case




Your Muhammad Hijab seems like a terrorist

 

[Myst]

So theres the definitions
Your Mohammad, used military might to gain power, You claim he gained power in medina peacefully
Yes he was a political success, i think i remember.
But he spreads by the sword.


Your Mohammad has a trained army? I say that claiming he did not have a trained army is semantical because of on the job experience
To say that they never had proper training and did not know how to fight after so many armed conflicts is absurd

their actions are based on self interest not ideology? Well to say they are might be rude, but I will give it my best shot

Through the spoils of war, it is noted that "the spoils of war has been made Halal (lawful) for me", indicating a clear connection between military success and material rewards.


A meme I made
View attachment 5169

The success of Islam is often attributed more to its political strategies than purely religious motivations, suggesting that material gain played a crucial role in its expansion

Their leadership is tied to charisma and patronage: see my previous answer

I dont want to dissect the last qualification he mentions because its waay too deep to discuss IMO. Atleast for a novice like me.

Muhammad Hijab is abusing his debate with an empty chair. IMO but thats because i disagree maybe

His explaining how Jesus might not be a figure of peace under some explanation is hilarious but acceptable
Christians view wrath is for god and not for man though.

He challenges to to find a place in scripture where its says its ok to slay categories of people sheep, cattle, and camel. Now this was really eye opening for me. I have long thought that the muslim treated the kaffir as domestic animals but I did not know that they were divided into animal categories.

He forbids killing women and children?
God bless, they get to be the slaves of those who bear the true religion in their heart

Muhammad Hijab talks about the only time Jesus used violence as an example of a Violent Jesus. Its really funny for him to make this case




Your Muhammad Hijab seems like a terrorist

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

(In the name of allah, the most gracious, the most merciful.)


Islam was not spread in medina through war, it was through alliances, treaties and peaceful interactions, the issue with the jewish tribes in medina is that they had insulted and plotted against the muslims, the prophet (PBUH) was initially seeking to establish peaceful relations with them and had treated them with respect and recognized their faith and even one time had jews come to him seeking wisdom regarding a certain matter and ruled according to their own jewish law. Their relationship eventually broke down due to religious disputes aka their rejection of prophet muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) despite many of them actually recognizing him as a prophet but had rejected him because he wasn't of the children of israel ethnically speaking.

The jewish tribes had also violated multiple agreements that they had with the muslims, banu nadir ahd plotted to kill the prophet muhammad (PBUH), banu qaynuqa insulted a muslim woman and broke the consitution of medina which they had had with the muslims, and banu qurayza had allied with the attacking forces during the battle of the trench but were still judged by the torah by the muslims after the siege was lifted. The actions taken against the jewish tribes weren't motivated by religious animosity but by political treason and broken agreements, the punishment of banu qurayza has been controversial, I'll admit that BUT it is consistent with what would have been punishment under jewish law at the time. Prophet muhammad (PBUH) had allowed the judgement to be passed by a member of the tribe, sa'id ibn mu'adh, which reflects prophet muhammads (pbuh) respect for their legal and judicial traditions, if he had been such a ruthless warlord out to conquer for his own personal interests, would he have still consistently showed such mercy towards his enemies? not just the jewish tribes but all of his enemies.

These events do not represent a systemic pattern of violence against jews, there are many instances where jews lived peacefully in the muslim state and many including the head rabbi if you will, had embraced islam. In later periods of muslim states, non-muslims had to pay jizya tax in exchange for protection and exemption from the military and the dhimmi (aka non-muslims) were taxed based on the region, individual financial situations and time period, the jizya tax was generally modest, muslims overall had to actually pay more tax than the dhimmis because of zakat, khums and other taxes.

And I agree with you on the matter of muhammad hijab and jesus (PBUH) but in both islamic and christian traditions, both prophets muhammad and jesus (PBUT) did not advocate for violence except for specific historical cases and situations which required violence to be warranted, violence is never a first resort in islam and never should be and again, is ONLY permitted under certain ethical limitations that I have previously mentioned in earlier posts.

As for slavery and captives being taken, slavery was a widely practiced in many parts of the world before modern times including pre-islamic arabia and the early muslim community. While islam did not *introduce* slavery, it regulated it in ways that were intended to gradually improve the treatment of slaves and captives, though the practice continued for centuries. You need to understand that before Islam, slavery was a deeply entrenched institution in many cultures, including pre-Islamic Arabia. Slaves were typically prisoners of war, people born into slavery, or those who had fallen into debt, and in the pre-islamic context, slaves were often treated harshly and their rights were very limited, almost treated like cattle at times. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: “Your slaves are your brothers. So, if Allah has placed them under your authority, feed them what you eat and clothe them with what you wear. Do not overburden them with tasks beyond their strength, and if you do, then help them” (Sahih Bukhari 6050).


In some cases,the emancipation of slaves was encouraged, and freeing a slave was considered a virtuous act. For example, the Quran offers a way to atone for sins through the freedom of slaves (e.g., freeing a slave as an expiation for breaking an oath in Surah Al-Mujadila, 58:3). Marriages between slaves and free people were also recognized, and children born from these unions were free. The children of slaves (if they were born to a free man) would also be free. The capturing of prisoners in war was a common practice in the ancient world, under Islamic law, captives were treated with dignity and had their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) met. And after military victories, captives could either be ransomed (if they had the means to pay for their freedom or if a family member or tribe could pay), freed (sometimes as an act of kindness or for religious reasons), or kept as slaves (if no ransom was possible and they were not freed).

In the Quran, the treatment of captives is addressed in several places. For example, in Surah Muhammad (47:4), it mentions that captives should either be set free as an act of kindness or in exchange for a ransom. Take banu qurayze for example like I had previously mentioned: The banu qurayza incident is one example where captives, in this case, from a tribe that had broken their treaty with the Muslims, were judged according to Jewish law, and the men were executed for treason, while the women and children were taken captive. The historical context of this is important because it was a punishment for treason during a time of war, not a religiously motivated act against Jews as a group, again, like I have already mentioned.


I ask allah to let this response be sufficient for me, you and anyone else that comes across this.

@Sovereign

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

You neglect to mention that a Dimmi forgoes civil rights

Yes the mafia will also sell their protection racket as modest too
This extortion tax is literally in exchange for not being attacked. killed and robbed by muslims

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

corpus.quran.com

Here we see the Jizya is not about fairness but the humiliation of the victims of Islam

I will not get into the specifics about treaties and agreements in medina, its waay above my level

violence is never a first resort in islam and never should be and again, is ONLY permitted under certain ethical limitations that I have previously mentioned in earlier posts.

yes its a process that comes over time. The violence must be halal so you can life your destiny to slay the kaffir walking the footsteps of Muhammed.

As for slavery and captives being taken, slavery was a widely practiced in many parts of the world before modern times including pre-islamic arabia and the early muslim community. While islam did not *introduce* slavery, it regulated it in ways that were intended to gradually improve the treatment of slaves and captives, though the practice continued for centuries.

Yes a holy man that promotes slavery.
In the south there were some more wholesome variations of slavery. The north never understood.
Islamic slavers were the last to mass castrate negro slaves. Thats hella weird and based at the same time. Was it halal or were they being extra curricular?

Marriages between slaves and free people

you mean concubines or marriages? do you mean Islamic man kaffir woman? Oh wait you killed all the men.


Id like to talk at length about all the slavery stuff but its all so intertwiningly clusterfucked

Do know that what you write is valid for a muslim slave
This is not valid for the Kaffir

It is written that you should love what allah loves and hate what Hallah hates
Your Allah hates the Kaffir
He teackes never to treat a kaffir as equel. so you can never treat him as brother so this slavery you are talking about is not valid for kaffir.

51% of islamic doctrine is about treatment of Kaffir
No other religion i think is so obsessed with those they see as their inferiors

 

[Myst]

You neglect to mention that a Dimmi forgoes civil rights

Yes the mafia will also sell their protection racket as modest too
This extortion tax is literally in exchange for not being attacked. killed and robbed by muslims

Dhimmis had a legal status that granted them protection from external threats, and granted them religious and community autonomy as well as judicial rights under islamic law. You could say "isn't islam all about equality tho? this is injustice!", islam teaches justice ('adl/3adl, which comes from the root verb 'a-d-l, which means to be equal to, just, straight, and temperate.) but that doesn't mean absolutely equality in the modern liberal sense, instead islam emphasizes equity (giving people rights based on their roles, responsibilities, individual circumstances and social context). For example: Parents don’t treat a young child and an adult child exactly the same, but that doesn’t mean they're being unfair, and in the case of dhimmis, they had different rights because muslims had additional duties such as islamic law, military service (where dhimmis were EXEMPT from), zakat, etc. whilst the dhimmis had different obligations such as jizya, exemption from military service, etc.

That isn't necessarily oppression, it was a system of mutual responsibility under islamic governance, and despite legal differences, Islam affirms the fundamental equality of all human beings:

"O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware." 49:13

Islam abolished tribal superiority and racism, The Prophet ﷺ said:

"There is no superiority of an arab over a non-arab, nor is there superiority of a non-arab over an arab, nor a white over a black, nor a black over a white, except in piety." (Musnad Ahmad, 23489; Sahih - Authenticated by Al-Albani in Silsilah al-Saheehah 2700)

Only abled-bodied adult men were required to pay jizya (not women, elderly people or children) and were refunded if the state failed to protect them (e.g., during the Muslim retreat from Syria against the Byzantines), and again, it was often lower than zakat which is what muslims had to pay.

yes its a process that comes over time. The violence must be halal so you can life your destiny to slay the kaffir walking the footsteps of Muhammed.


Yes a holy man that promotes slavery.
In the south there were some more wholesome variations of slavery. The north never understood.
Islamic slavers were the last to mass castrate negro slaves. Thats hella weird and based at the same time. Was it halal or were they being extra curricular?

Islam does not promote the killing of non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslims. The Quran explicitly states:

"There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256)

"If they incline to peace, incline to it also, and rely upon allah..." (8:61)


The dhimmis thrived under muslim states and many of them rose to high status such as Hasdai ibn shaprut who was a jewish scholar and diplomat in al-andalus (muslim iberia), Sergius of Reshaina who was a christian physician that translated greek texts for muslim caliphs, ibn al-Muqaffa', a persian Zoroastrian who influenced arabic literature, and many more. They lived peacefully for centuries without being "slain". And I recommend you look into the treaty of Hudaybiyyah because it's very crucial and essential to our debate because the prophet (PBUH) made many peace treaties including the treaty of Hudaybiyyah, I get you're reluctant to because it's above your "paygrade" but you're probably the first person I've properly debated and I'm still trying, and I urge you to try too brother and I remind us to keep open minds when debating because if we didn't then there'd be no point in debating because everything would be based on our emotions and feelings instead of clear-cut objective facts and reasoning, rome wasn't built in a day.

Slavery existed in all civilizations before Islam. However, islam reformed slavery and made freeing slaves one of the greatest acts of worship, the prophet (PBUH) freed more slaves than he had owned and encouraged others to do the same, the quran repeatedly orders the freeing of slaves as an act of righteousness such as 90:12-13 "And what will make you know the path of goodness? it is to free a slave..."
And sahih muslim, 1509a "Freeing a slave is the best form of charity", unlike other societies, islamic law forbade the enslavement of free people outside of war such as in sahih bukhari 2227: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Allah says, 'I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: -1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but he proves treacherous. -2. One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price, -3. And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him but does not pay him his wages.' ". This means that capturing free people outside of war and enslaving them (as was common in transatlantic slavery) is a grave sin. And as for the issues of captives captured and enslaved during war, I already refuted and explained that.

The claim that islamic slavers were the last to mass-castrate negro slaves is simply historically inaccurate. While some African slaves were castrated, this was NOT an Islamic practice but a practice carried out by slave traders for economic reasons. Islam forbids the castration of slaves as the prophet (PBUH) explicitly forbade it in sahih muslim 1676 and indirectly in sunan ibn majah 2340 "There shall be no harming or reciprocrating of harming". This does not mean no harm at all, you can and should fight when there is a just cause such as being invaded or being oppressed but even in war there are regulations as I've previously mentioned, and slaves can't even be forced into prositution as mentioned in the quran 24:33, therefore slaves cannot be forced or coerced into marrying you, but EVEN if they accept, if one is already married to a woman or multiple women, she/they must consent to it without any coercion or pressure, same thing if a man wants another wife. And he MUST be emotionally, spiritually, physically and financially capable of marrying to marry.

 

[Myst]

Dhimmis had a legal status that granted them protection from external threats, and granted them religious and community autonomy as well as judicial rights under islamic law. You could say "isn't islam all about equality tho? this is injustice!", islam teaches justice ('adl/3adl, which comes from the root verb 'a-d-l, which means to be equal to, just, straight, and temperate.) but that doesn't mean absolutely equality in the modern liberal sense, instead islam emphasizes equity (giving people rights based on their roles, responsibilities, individual circumstances and social context). For example: Parents don’t treat a young child and an adult child exactly the same, but that doesn’t mean they're being unfair, and in the case of dhimmis, they had different rights because muslims had additional duties such as islamic law, military service (where dhimmis were EXEMPT from), zakat, etc. whilst the dhimmis had different obligations such as jizya, exemption from military service, etc.

That isn't necessarily oppression, it was a system of mutual responsibility under islamic governance, and despite legal differences, Islam affirms the fundamental equality of all human beings:

"O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware." 49:13

Islam abolished tribal superiority and racism, The Prophet ﷺ said:

"There is no superiority of an arab over a non-arab, nor is there superiority of a non-arab over an arab, nor a white over a black, nor a black over a white, except in piety." (Musnad Ahmad, 23489; Sahih - Authenticated by Al-Albani in Silsilah al-Saheehah 2700)

Only abled-bodied adult men were required to pay jizya (not women, elderly people or children) and were refunded if the state failed to protect them (e.g., during the Muslim retreat from Syria against the Byzantines), and again, it was often lower than zakat which is what muslims had to pay.

Islam does not promote the killing of non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslims. The Quran explicitly states:

"There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256)

"If they incline to peace, incline to it also, and rely upon allah..." (8:61)


The dhimmis thrived under muslim states and many of them rose to high status such as Hasdai ibn shaprut who was a jewish scholar and diplomat in al-andalus (muslim iberia), Sergius of Reshaina who was a christian physician that translated greek texts for muslim caliphs, ibn al-Muqaffa', a persian Zoroastrian who influenced arabic literature, and many more. They lived peacefully for centuries without being "slain". And I recommend you look into the treaty of Hudaybiyyah because it's very crucial and essential to our debate because the prophet (PBUH) made many peace treaties including the treaty of Hudaybiyyah, I get you're reluctant to because it's above your "paygrade" but you're probably the first person I've properly debated and I'm still trying, and I urge you to try too brother and I remind us to keep open minds when debating because if we didn't then there'd be no point in debating because everything would be based on our emotions and feelings instead of clear-cut objective facts and reasoning, rome wasn't built in a day.

Slavery existed in all civilizations before Islam. However, islam reformed slavery and made freeing slaves one of the greatest acts of worship, the prophet (PBUH) freed more slaves than he had owned and encouraged others to do the same, the quran repeatedly orders the freeing of slaves as an act of righteousness such as 90:12-13 "And what will make you know the path of goodness? it is to free a slave..."
And sahih muslim, 1509a "Freeing a slave is the best form of charity", unlike other societies, islamic law forbade the enslavement of free people outside of war such as in sahih bukhari 2227: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Allah says, 'I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: -1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but he proves treacherous. -2. One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price, -3. And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him but does not pay him his wages.' ". This means that capturing free people outside of war and enslaving them (as was common in transatlantic slavery) is a grave sin. And as for the issues of captives captured and enslaved during war, I already refuted and explained that.

The claim that islamic slavers were the last to mass-castrate negro slaves is simply historically inaccurate. While some African slaves were castrated, this was NOT an Islamic practice but a practice carried out by slave traders for economic reasons. Islam forbids the castration of slaves as the prophet (PBUH) explicitly forbade it in sahih muslim 1676 and indirectly in sunan ibn majah 2340 "There shall be no harming or reciprocrating of harming". This does not mean no harm at all, you can and should fight when there is a just cause such as being invaded or being oppressed but even in war there are regulations as I've previously mentioned, and slaves can't even be forced into prositution as mentioned in the quran 24:33, therefore slaves cannot be forced or coerced into marrying you, but EVEN if they accept, if one is already married to a woman or multiple women, she/they must consent to it without any coercion or pressure, same thing if a man wants another wife. And he MUST be emotionally, spiritually, physically and financially capable of marrying to marry.

@Magonia ?

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

@Magonia ?

not yet. @Postman want to run this tag team style?

 

[Myst]

not yet. @Postman want to run this tag team style?

Why tag team? he's christian.

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

Why tag team? he's christian.

He also thinks Islam is the worst religion or something like that.

 

[Myst]

He also thinks Islam is the worst religion or something like that.

Well why would you need his help?

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

Well why would you need his help?

I might not feel like writing every day and he has way more first hand experience

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

How about stop engaging with this thread

Male feminists should communicate via whiteboard

 

[DreamLight]

Stop posting that guys videos and stop being a cuckservative

Whats wrong with AP?

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

Whats wrong with AP?

nothing at all @Plukee :): just a male femmenist. He wants to join islam to protect the gays

 

[Myst]

I might not feel like writing every day and he has way more first hand experience

I have less first hand experience too lol, I don't have a partner to help me

 

[Myst]

Male feminists should communicate via whiteboard

How about you provide a proper argument instead of anecdotes?

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

I have less first hand experience too lol, I don't have a partner to help me

You want the thread to keep going. I would choose @Postman to be my champion. If you want to switch off from someone you can,

You dont have fist hand experience with islam and attacking me for being anecdotal?

Elysian fields is so insane

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

Can you shut the fuck up please

Your mom can shut the fuck up with my dick in her mouth