why do muslims rarely kill themselves

[ihatereddit]

is allah helping them?

 

[theonewhorisesabove]

As a Christian I respect Muslims commitment

 

[deadbydecember]

not sure. I say because they have it easy not justifying but in those muslim countries they can just pick any women to marry and keep them as a slave. On the other hand more civilized countries like america most ugly men gotta suffer because women dont need to depend on men anymore.

 

[Uehdbwidbfngj]

not sure. I say because they have it easy not justifying but in those muslim countries they can just pick any women to marry and keep them as a slave. On the other hand more civilized countries like america most ugly men gotta suffer because women dont need to depend on men anymore.

Lowiqcel

 

[Tyler1]

cuz Allah says you will go to hell if you rope

 

[deadbydecember]

Lowiqcel

how

 

[hunnidrounds]

They do? Suicide bombers.

 

[bp3nthusiast]

is allah helping them?

in the quran it says if u kill your self or commit you will go to hel automatically no matter how much deeds or a good person you are

 

[santnewgen]

idk idc

 

[160cmcurry]

in the quran, it says that if you kill yourself, you go to hell, “jahannam,” which is the arabic word for hell that many muslims refer to it as

 

[goodgenetic01]

Because It is haram

 

[RXnd]

They don’t consider suicide bombing suicide

 

[puniteking]

in the quran, it says that if you kill yourself, you go to hell, “jahannam,” which is the arabic word for hell that many muslims refer to it as

Calc is short for calculator I’m using slang btw

 

[RapeAllFemales]

There is an arabic saying that goes: "Do you want to die? Then throw yourself into the sea and you will see yourself struggling to survive. You do not want to kill yourself, rather you want to kill something inside you."

 

[TRUE777REDEEMER]

Pretty sure suicide is "Haram" for Muslims so they won't go to heaven, and they truly believe there is 72 virgin baddie sex slaves waiting for them in heaven jfl

 

[Arthur the Egyptian]

not sure. I say because they have it easy not justifying but in those muslim countries they can just pick any women to marry and keep them as a slave. On the other hand more civilized countries like america most ugly men gotta suffer because women dont need to depend on men anymore.

That shit doesn't exist in 2025 jfl

 

[deadbydecember]

That shit doesn't exist in 2025 jfl

Yea right, it does exist you ancer coper

 

[Gamerspyy786]

not sure. I say because they have it easy not justifying but in those muslim countries they can just pick any women to marry and keep them as a slave. On the other hand more civilized countries like america most ugly men gotta suffer because women dont need to depend on men anymore.

Dawg this isn’t the case in most Muslim countries. Only Afghanistan has some giga strict extreme policy (in some parts of Afghanistan)

 

[childishkillah]

Yea right, it does exist you ancer coper

deadbydecember​

Iron​

JoinedMar 2, 2025

How we still let this happen? Someone doxx this grey

 

[childishkillah]

They do? Suicide bombers.

No, rope is fag and lot t, human bombs are low inhib and high t

 

[trenace450]

is allah helping them?

Prophet Muhammed literally had like 3 suicide attempts

 

[Beastimmung]

As a Christian I respect Muslims commitment

They aren't commited they just follow the rules that are convenient to them

 

[Basedman420]

Indeed, there is ease with hardship. (94:5)

 

[Basedman420]

Prophet Muhammed literally had like 3 suicide attempts

what a lie

 

[deadbydecember]

deadbydecember​

Iron​

JoinedMar 2, 2025

How we still let this happen? Someone doxx this grey

You mad sissy boy

 

[Arthur the Egyptian]

Yea right, it does exist you ancer coper

i'm not muslim + i live in egypt + grow up

 

[childishkillah]

You mad sissy boy

 

[trenace450]

what a lie

It's not a lie jfl, look it up it's very well known.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 6982
"But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet (ﷺ) became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) in truth"

Now seethe you lowiq muzzie

 

[Basedman420]

It's not a lie jfl, look it up it's very well known.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 6982
"But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet (ﷺ) became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) in truth"

Now seethe you lowiq muzzie

Shaykh Shu‘ayb said:
“Its chain of narration is authentic according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim), except for the statement: ‘...until the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) became so sad—as has reached us—that he...’ for this is from the disconnected narrations (balāghāt) of al-Zuhri, and they are weak.”

The balāghāt (narrations with missing links) of al-Zuhri are not accepted, because their chains are cut off from the beginning, making them similar to mu‘allaqāt (suspended narrations) both in definition and in ruling.
The mere presence of such balāghāt or mu‘allaqāt in Imam al-Bukhari’s Sahih does not mean that they are authentic according to him, nor that it is correct to say, “al-Bukhari narrated it,” because that expression is only used for what he narrated with a connected chain (musnad).


you can search more before you come to debate

 

[deadbydecember]

View attachment 3698653

Buddy you have”ethnic looks goal” and a white dude as your pfp you make no sense

 

[childishkillah]

Buddy you have”ethnic looks goal” and a white dude as your pfp you make no sense

View attachment 3698653

 

[neurosis]

>If you kill yourself you will burn in hell for eternity
>But suicide bombing in the name of allah is completely fine

can any muslimcel explain this logic to me

 

[wsada]

>But suicide bombing in the name of allah is completely fine

No it's not only retards believe this

 

[trenace450]

Shaykh Shu‘ayb said:
“Its chain of narration is authentic according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim), except for the statement: ‘...until the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) became so sad—as has reached us—that he...’ for this is from the disconnected narrations (balāghāt) of al-Zuhri, and they are weak.”

The balāghāt (narrations with missing links) of al-Zuhri are not accepted, because their chains are cut off from the beginning, making them similar to mu‘allaqāt (suspended narrations) both in definition and in ruling.
The mere presence of such balāghāt or mu‘allaqāt in Imam al-Bukhari’s Sahih does not mean that they are authentic according to him, nor that it is correct to say, “al-Bukhari narrated it,” because that expression is only used for what he narrated with a connected chain (musnad).


you can search more before you come to debate

Yeah sure in islam isnad determines the authenticity of something. But i don't see why i have to follow the same rules. And they also weren't even systematized in al-Zuhris time. Seems weird to me that al-Zuhri would put that in there especially when it didn't follow the earlier accounts. So did al-Zuhri lie intentionally, was he just stupid, or was it forged? Either option gives you a load of epistemic problems surrounding authenticity.
You're also kind of fucked in basically admitting that al-Zuhri didn't follow your current ruleset. Because by that logic, it's very difficult for you to distinguish authenticity in the earlier accounts, since they didn't follow the same ruleset. And the later accounts rely on the earlier accounts, so suddenly all of your hadiths are fallible and uncertain.
Or you can just accept that al-Zuhri was right even tho he didn't follow isnad, which doesn't give you the same epistemic issue

 

[doxcine]

why would you waste a gift allah has gave you, we belive life is a gift, its like giving a starving child food then he decides to waste it

 

[Basedman420]

But i don't see why i have to follow the same rules.

Maybe because you're discussing my religion?

Al-Zuhri’s report isn’t treated as authoritative precisely because it lacks isnad that’s not a flaw in the system, it’s evidence that the system works. Early transmitters weren’t operating with the later formalized methodology, but the methodology was developed in response to that reality, to sift and verify. You’re confusing historical development with inconsistency. In fact, the system’s ability to flag weak links like this shows it has epistemic integrity, not fragility.

 

[doxcine]

>If you kill yourself you will burn in hell for eternity
>But suicide bombing in the name of allah is completely fine

can any muslimcel explain this logic to me

suicide bombing isn't fine, in islam its comepletly forbidden to kill somebody there's a verse saying if you kill one innocent is like killing the whole mankind, those who kill the innocent are called khawarij even the prophet warned us abou them thousand years ago

 

[88PSLinAgartha]

suicide is haram unless you take other people with you

 

[trenace450]

Early transmitters weren’t operating with the later formalized methodology, but the methodology was developed in response to that reality,

Yeah exactly, and that's post hoc, it doesn't guarantee shit with the earlier accounts. It's probabilistic not infallible. Your entire epistemology is basically "yeah this probably happened". The later accounts are relying on the earlier ones, but the earlier ones didn't always distinguish hearsay from history, as you've just shown with al-Zuhris account. So you've got a fallible foundation that everything relies on.

 

[Basedman420]

Yeah exactly, and that's post hoc, it doesn't guarantee shit with the earlier accounts. It's probabilistic not infallible. Your entire epistemology is basically "yeah this probably happened". The later accounts are relying on the earlier ones, but the earlier ones didn't always distinguish hearsay from history, as you've just shown with al-Zuhris account. So you've got a fallible foundation that everything relies on.

You’re confusing probabilistic knowledge with useless knowledge. Every historical science whether Hadith, classical history, or even modern historiography is probabilistic. Infallibility isn't the standard, warranted justification is. The Hadith methodology isn’t a blind faith in early sources it’s a self-correcting filter that exposes weak early reports like al-Zuhri’s and builds only on verified chains. Your critique assumes the methodology treats all reports equally, which is false. The foundation isn’t fallible, it’s filtered. Big difference.

 

[trenace450]

You’re confusing probabilistic knowledge with useless knowledge. Every historical science whether Hadith, classical history, or even modern historiography is probabilistic. Infallibility isn't the standard, warranted justification is. The Hadith methodology isn’t a blind faith in early sources it’s a self-correcting filter that exposes weak early reports like al-Zuhri’s and builds only on verified chains. Your critique assumes the methodology treats all reports equally, which is false. The foundation isn’t fallible, it’s filtered. Big difference.

Yeah i'm not critiquing the methodology itself, i'm critiquing it's application. "The foundation is filtered", is a historical claim and just begs the question. I'm arguing that the methodology hasn't been used reliably because it was applied post hoc. If you reject shit from al-Zuhri because it doesn't follow your methodology, but you can't provide an epistemic justification for why your filtering actually works, then your position just fails

 

[Tallooksmaxxer]

did you born like yesterday? literally every civil war in last 20 years broke out in muslim countries

 

[Basedman420]

Yeah i'm not critiquing the methodology itself, i'm critiquing it's application. "The foundation is filtered", is a historical claim and just begs the question. I'm arguing that the methodology hasn't been used reliably because it was applied post hoc. If you reject shit from al-Zuhri because it doesn't follow your methodology, but you can't provide an epistemic justification for why your filtering actually works, then your position just fails

But you’re still smuggling in a contradiction: you accept that the methodology is sound in principle, but then deny its results in practice solely because it was developed later. That’s like rejecting the validity of carbon dating because the tool didn’t exist when the fossils formed. Post hoc development doesn’t invalidate epistemic tools it shows intellectual progress. The reason we reject al-Zuhri’s unchained report is because the methodology works as a retroactive filter, not despite it. Unless you show that the filtering process fails on its own terms, your critique isn’t epistemic it’s just chronological bias.

 

[Jelexy]

They do? Suicide bombers.

Not all muslims are arab and terrorist nigga

 

[imontheloose]

The reason suicide stats are so low for Muslims is by deterrence, that's it. They truly believe their fable somehow, and their Holy Book states a man who commits suicide will indefinitely proceed to repeat the method of suicide in eternal damnation in the pits of hellfire. Muslims have a greater sense of belief and faith than other religions and thus they take it very serious.

You may ask, how come they don't apply this to other rulings of the Quranic discourse? And that's simply explained: they're a cynical people.

 

[trenace450]

you accept that the methodology is sound in principle, but then deny its results in practice solely because it was developed later. That’s like rejecting the validity of carbon dating because the tool didn’t exist when the fossils formed.

Bad analogy. It's not solely because it was developed later. It's because the systematized methodology didn't apply to the earlier accounts, meaning their accounts are unjustified. It's post hoc, so the later accounts would have had to retroactively apply the methodology to the earlier ones. That process is what's in question.

Unless you show that the filtering process fails on its own terms

Yeah not sure if you're sunni or shia but Sunan al-Tirmidhī, Hadith 3662
"that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Stick to the two after me, Abu Bakr and 'Umar." The sunni call it authentic and the isnad checks out. Yet all shia say it's fabricated(for obvious reasons). And if we think critically and historically, it's highly likely fabricated. The political motivations and the disagreement between the sunni and shia means we can't be very certain about this hadith, even when applying your methodology.