• 0 Posts
  • 57 Comments
Joined 1 年前
Cake day: 2024年6月17日
  • رضا@lemmy.worldtoNot The Onion@lemmy.world•Tennessee GOP Proposes Bill Eliminating Age Requirements for MarriageEnglish
    31·
    4 天前

    a lot of meme level stuff that is going around on the net about Islam or Muslims is just that, bullshit memes.

    and a lot of actual text that are part of islamic history kept by muslim scholars are just straight lies, which muslim scholar know that are false but keep them for record keeping. like a lot of hadiths from prophet are fabricated. for example after death of prophet some dude wanted to sell his onions and he paid a mullah (imam in mosque) some money to say that prophet said that whoever eats these kinds of onions get rewarded in afterlife. you know… fake news.

    I am a (not a great) muslim from iran. the first time I heard about supposed 72 virgins was a stand up comedy from late comedian/actor Robin Williams that made fun of it.

    and this marriage of mohammed to a small girl is not corroborate in any text that is not fake. for example in one text the girl sister age IS mentioned and then it is written that her sister (the girl) joined islam. but is she was 9 (not even 6 mentioned here) she should either not be born at that time or in her mothers womb.

    the Revayats (saying of companions of prophets) point to her being either 19 or 17.

    having said all of this, at that time marriage was done very early age (though Muhammad first wife was 40). for example one jewish tribe wanted to make a partnership with the muhammed so they send people over to offer a jewish woman for marriage. she was a widow so she was married before that event. twice. to jewish men. that jewish woman was 8 years old. mohammed didnt accept it.

    I read somewhere that in history of England you see the first written record for enforcement of marriage age as follow. marriage : 7 years old. inheritance from husband in case of his death: 11 ( I think)

    I don’t remember where I read that.

  • رضا@lemmy.worldtoAndroid@lemdro.id•GrapheneOS could break Pixel exclusivity in 2026 with major OEM dealEnglish
    1·
    8 天前

    yea, a lot of open source projects are done by people that don’t see the point of copyleft software.
    I think a lot of people just go with the 4 freedoms that RMS laid out. when I read devs’ reasons to use non-copyleft license, it boils down to “I don’t want to limit freedom of later devs even if those devs are gonna fork it and make it private”. even when they say “I don’t care” they mean the same.

    and they have the right to see it that way. my thinking is that humanity used to not have copyright at all. and the reason we are not living in caves is that knowledge mostly was spread (even when going from father to son only).

    so I think software needs to go that way as much as it can.
    I understand that developing software needs money and I even understand patents to an extent. but shit gone mad and patents are gone crazy. android is THE shining prime example of what happens even with a company that at least pretended not to go this way (that was naive to think they wouldn’t)

    that’s why I going to write any software I write (even though I am just starting programing) in the most copyleft license ever I find.
    maybe even more stalman than gpl3.

    btw is there any site that explains the practical diff between gpl2 and 3? not tldr but not in details either, just maybe explain case base what happens?

  • رضا@lemmy.worldtoAndroid@lemdro.id•GrapheneOS could break Pixel exclusivity in 2026 with major OEM dealEnglish
    4·
    8 天前

    as I said in last post, I only see copyleft as a viable alternative. too many dev efforts forked and privatized. android should have been a warning. but many devs just think open source is enough. and they still think getting adapted by big corporation will not change the direction of projects.

    I am personally going in the direction of testing and helping only copyleft projects. so I skipped RedoxOS. even-though I like rust and new microkernel OSes.

    If I am going to give my time to a project (small as it is) I don’t want it to end up like android.

  • رضا@lemmy.worldtoLondon@feddit.uk•Minister ‘appalled’ at Muslim charity run in London that excluded womenEnglish
    1·
    8 天前

    as I get older I get more towards freedom of association vs forced inclusion. I am even somewhat (not completely) against forcing companies to hire people they dot want to hire. if that company want to lose money because they don’t hire men( or women or muslim or whatever), in my opinion that’s their right. and companies hire based on their need mostly.

    two points against my own argument: 1- companies should hire based on what they want but should not be able to fire you willy nilly. even if you are a piece of shit that support retarded or racist ideology.

    2-copanies being able to hire who they want (one legged female presenting dem-gus/god) is for a better society that people are not as poor as the current culture created by greed and power. so I don’t think it should be done now.

    but charity or gyms or clubs and so on should be able to include or exclude who they want.

    it may sound unfair to you but for me it goes with freedom of association which is way more important than freedom of speech.

  • رضا@lemmy.worldtoLondon@feddit.uk•Minister ‘appalled’ at Muslim charity run in London that excluded womenEnglish
    31·
    8 天前

    charity is a personal private issue. like a lot of other issues. I can give money to poor. I can be stupid and give money to rich. I can create a shelter for women in abusing marriages and exclude men. I can do the same for men and exclude women.

    I can create an event for women only. I should be able to create for men only.

    if it is not obvious I am against laws that force you to associate with groups.

    so I am for mixed gym and also women gyms and men only gyms.

    the only thing I can think against this charity is that by being called (officially) “charity” they have to accept some laws, like no exclusion based on sex. I am against that law (it is an stupid law) but if you have a charity you have to be inside the law.

    if you are gonna think that is not a stupid law to force you to associate with groups you don’t want, that is a point you can make (which I don’t accept) but if that law wasn’t there, then this charity would not have done anything wrong. another charity can do the same and exclude men ( or even muslims) and I think that is ok.