A master, and an apprentice.

Oh, I get you now. I assumed this part was already clear, but you are right to point it out for those who weren't aware that it's a name.

I know that, but as you've pointed out Ibn stands for "son of".

So in this context, it's "son of 'Arabi". I never said it' s just a name, almost all names have a meaning. But here, the father is called 'Arabi and thus it says Ibn al-'Arabi (my neighbour's name is al-'Arabi)

No, you destroy the dragon of chaos, you do not have sex with her.

[removed]

Generally speaking, any name of Arabic origin has some meaning behind it. 'Just a name' is not really a thing over here, except for names which predate the Arabic language.

[removed]

[removed]

Im not arguing in bad faith at all. Im pointing out the flaws in your arguments and you dont like it.

Reproduction is not the only measure of a sucessful relationship and for many its not a measure at all. Polyamorus relationships can be sucessful, some with children, some without children. As I said I personally have multiple sucessful relationships without children and I will never have children.

Additionally for same sex relationships naturally born children isn't possible and so clearly can't be the only measure of success.

Nah, you are just arguing in bad faith. What you are defining is defined as subsistence wage. Living wage is defined as a minimum to live a basic but decent life. Also saying that money is not a measure of success anywhere in the western world is 100% bad faith.

Notice how its a "living wage", i.e. a wage on which people can live while working and pursuing their career. The living wage is the bare minimum a job needs to pay to ensure the person doing it can continue living, its not a measure of success.

You're really bad at making arguments.

Mhm, and all that talk about being paid a livable wage is just people focusing on the wrong things in life right?

Thats doubly wrong and a terrible example that further proves my point. Assuming money is what defines a sucessful career is also a really bad assumption. It actually might be a worse assumption than assuming a sucessful relationship is one where you have kids.

A sucessful career is one that is fulfilling, challenging, worthwhile, and makes a difference. Sure money is involved and its a primary motivation for some but its hardly the first thing people think of when they think about a sucessful career

Yeah, you could argue that a successful career need not involve money. However telling people they were wrong to assume that money is the expected reward sounds either dishonest or entitled.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

You've made the incorrect assumption that the only measure of success for a relationship is reproduction. Relationships can be sucessful without children, I'm in multiple sucessful relationships, I have no children, and I'm sterile.

Ok, I'll bite. Explain how polyamory will optimize reproductive success for all involved in the relationship compared to an exclusive pairing. Please do gloss over the problem of inheritance.

[removed]

[removed]

😂 I started to watch it, then I saw how many episodes there were and gave up. Ibn al'arabi is the most interesting character

[removed]

[removed]

Well yeah you don't have to watch 700h at once back to back lmao just watch it whenever you got time like with anything else

Yeah, by conservatives. But on the topic of racism in Islamic countries, Islam’s history of slavery, apartheid, terrorism/religious wars, issues around gender equality and gender based segregation, the incredibly patriarchal nature of historical Islam etc, ‘liberals’ tend to be silent or apologetic. For example, the fact that liberals defend the hijab despite the fact that it is steeped in misogyny is, for me, the height of hypocrisy. The worst of it is that ‘liberals’ end up protecting the platforms and agendas of conservative and reactionary Muslim movements, while progressive Muslims and those who want to develop a self critical Islam compatible with western values, like Ghaleb Bencheikh, Malek Chebel, or even women of colour from Islamic societies speaking out against religious motivated injustices (ayaan hirsi Ali), are left without support. Why do liberal imams like Chalghoumi need to live under police protection exactly? When will Islam do its Vatican II?

I do wonder if I'm wasting my time engaging in good faith phlisophical arguments on this sub as many people just seem both ignorant and bigoted.