In the year 2032, the newly formed nation of **Palisrael** emerged as a fragile but determined experiment in reconciliation. Born from the ashes of a century-long conflict between two peoples who had both claimed the same land, Palisrael stood at the crossroads of possibility. It was a state dedicated to coexistence between the two primary ethnic groups who now lived side by side, working together to overcome years of violence and mistrust. Yet, this new chapter of history was not unfolding without complications.
Amid the delicate balancing act of governance, the leaders of Palisrael found themselves embroiled in an unexpected and unprecedented legal battle in international courts. The lawsuit, initiated by the Palisrael government, named several high-profile defendants—foreign influencers, journalists, and even prominent politicians from various countries. The accusation was severe: **incitement to colonial overreach**.
The Palisraeli legal representatives argued that these outsiders, despite living far from the contested territories, had wielded significant power in shaping the ideologies of local settlers who sought to expand their hold on lands historically inhabited by indigenous peoples. The foreign defendants, mostly from the United States and Europe, were accused of using their platforms to encourage aggressive territorial appropriation, subtly cloaked in the language of religious or historical justification. Palisrael’s lawyers charged that their messages, though thinly veiled in contemporary terms, had roots in a 19th-century colonial mindset.
In the opening arguments, Palisrael's lead prosecutor, Amira Hassan, described the insidious nature of the defendants' rhetoric. "These influencers and public figures," she declared, "have repeatedly framed the territorial expansion of settlers as a right. But beneath their words lies a familiar and dangerous belief: the belief in the ethnic superiority of one group over another. This is a worldview that hearkens back to a time of colonial conquest, when land and people were seen as commodities to be claimed and dominated."
The central piece of evidence was the undeniable fact that the defendants had routinely invoked historical analogies comparing the settlers' claims to the manifest destiny once used to justify American westward expansion. The narrative echoed the racist assumptions of European empires that had long since been discredited in academia but still persisted in certain corners of political discourse. These influencers had, Palisrael argued, emboldened settlers with visions of a divine or civilizational mandate to expand their reach, regardless of the rights of indigenous peoples who had lived on the land for generations.
Defenders of the accused were quick to deny any malicious intent, asserting that their words had been taken out of context. “We only sought to highlight the historic ties of the settlers to these lands,” they claimed. But Palisrael pressed on, challenging that the defendants were promoting a myth of entitlement that ignored the complex histories of dispossession and displacement.
The trial was more than a legal dispute; it became a symbol of Palisrael’s struggle to define its national identity in the 21st century. For many, it was about more than land—it was about the kind of future Palisrael wanted to build, one where ethnic superiority and colonial legacies had no place.
As the trial continued, the world watched closely. This was not just a question of law; it was a question of morality, a reckoning with the dark shadows of history. Would those accused of fueling settler overreach be held accountable, or would the old narratives of conquest and domination continue to shape the lives of the people of Palisrael?
In the courtroom, Amira Hassan spoke with quiet determination: "This is our chance to break free from the chains of colonialist mindsets and build a nation rooted in equality, respect, and justice."

[This post was initially published as 'A little conspiracy theory of mine' on Oct 25 2016. I've now retitled it and linked some of the text with the notion of the Great Replacement Theory.]
Summary
Britain, after the Second World War ostensibly recruited workers from various developing countries in order to fill skill shortages. However, around the same time, there was a concerted effort by Australia to recruit working-class Britons. A possible explanation to this anomalous situation is that there was a concerted policy by Britain and Australia to ensure that Australia remained white. This is one argument against the idea that inward migration into the West is somehow an attack on white people. The two examples of migration examined here represent the opposite.
The Great Replacement Theory
According to Prof Matthew Feldman there is a lite of versions of The Great Replacement Theory and a full-fat one and the latter holds that:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/08/a-deadly-ideology-how-the-great-replacement-theory-went-mainstream
In this post, I will argue that at least in terms of one example, this is indeed the case, but rather than representing some form of surrender on the part of the 'white race' as the far right claims the policy represents, it is actually the opposite.
The Windrush Generation
This is the narrative all Britons have been brought up with (the following is from the UK government's own website):
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/brave_new_world/immigration.htm
It sounds very multi-culti, liberal and nice. Britain needed labour, brown people needed jobs and everyone would get along swimmingly in post-war Britain. This was not illegal immigration, it was planned and made good economic sense.
Here's some more justification from the British Library:
http://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item107671.html
To help immigration into the UK, the British Nationality Act of 1948 gave rights to all people from the commonwealth to settle in the country. West Indian immigration to the UK from the 1940's to the 1960s was about 170,000. In Britain, there was an increase of about 80,000 people originating from the Indian sub-continent from 1951 to 1961.
So if there was such a shortage of labour in postwar Britain, surely the British government would have been aghast at the prospect of Britons leaving the UK? And trying to put a stop to it?
Apparently not.
The Assisted Passage Scheme from Britain to Australia
Australia's 'Assisted Passage Migration Scheme' started in 1945 and involved 1 million people migrating from Britain to Australia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7217889.stm
The following paper adds some nuance to this:
Yet despite the 'reluctance' we still get:
Stephen Constantine (2003) British emigration to the empire- commonwealth since 1880: From overseas settlement to Diaspora?, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 31:2, 16-35, DOI: 10.1080/03086530310001705586
From the same paper the following motivation, which refers to policies in the nineteenth century could perhaps explain the flow of people observed at the top of this post:
 
Conclusion
In sum, Britain was allowed to go a bit brown, because it was essential that Australia, Canada and other dominions remain essentially white. And this racist policy was maintained until the facts on the ground had been established. This point is one counter-arguments to the 'Great Replacement Theory' that has been espoused in some far-right circles in the West.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/08/a-deadly-ideology-how-the-great-replacement-theory-went-mainstream
 
So we have two migration stories. And the funny thing is that the first story is covered in the press, and you'll also find the second story given a lot of attention.
 
But the two are never mentioned together.
 
It's when you put, what are otherwise very positive stories together, that something far nastier emerges. Something which is within plain sight but unacknowledged.
 
https://contemporaniablog.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/poms-and-windrush/

Edited 1st July 2024 to improve clarity. Edited 20th July 2024 to include a more detailed reference to face validity. Added reference to Lindt 27th August 2024.
 
Summary
Just because something is not created via the scientific method, does not mean it can't be useful - implications about how we think about religious precepts.
Serendipity (pot luck)
I have previously noted how, in some fields of human endeavour, the scientific approach is held to be the ideal. In reality however human scientific and technological discoveries have often been the result of luck and even mistakes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn47zg3xgxxo
Social science 'theories'
There is a corollary in the field of the social sciences which also emphasise the value of the scientific approach to generate knowledge. In this domain the anomalies are various frameworks and models that are widely taught and even used, but which have no basis in rigorous scientific research.
The famous work by Abraham Maslow on motivation and his resulting 'hierarchy of needs' is very widely studied and used. He posits that human motivation at the fundamental level is driven by physiological needs, and once these are satisfied (he did qualify this in later works) people try and address safety needs and then, social needs and self-esteem and finally self-actualisation. 
But Maslow did not come up with this through any research that would hold up to scientific scrutiny.
Does the lack of a scientific approach invalidate a model or framework?
Yet the Maslow hierarchy is productively used by professionals in a variety of industries, managers, MBA students and others in universities. For example, people use it to understand why consumers buy certain products.
The same issue applies to Bloom's taxonomy in the field of learning and also Elmo's buying funnel in the area of marketing. The three laws of robotics have their basis in science fiction and in the area of web searching there is no scientific basis for the information-navigational-transactional categories that are used.
Face validity
The implication from this is that while ideas and knowledge may ideally be the result of the scientific approach i.e. hypothesising and then testing, there are many instances where this is not the case. In the area of the social sciences and management the value of some types of knowledge seems to rest on their 'face validity', do they make sense to practitioners? Can those individuals make better sense of their external environment as a result of using these tools and if they can, that is good enough?
I should point out at this stage that the term face validity has a specific meaning in the realm of research methods. It refers to whether for example, ordinary users of health services believe that the questionnaire items used to measure a specific condition make sense to them. The following paper provides an illustration of the concept with a worked example of how a measure used to assess Recovering Quality of Life was developed following input from lay patients.
 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5997715/
Implications for religion
The same principle could surely apply to various aspects of religion. There may be no scientific proof underpinning various religious ideas and injunctions, but if they have face validity, if they help the individual make sense of their external environment, manage it and live what they consider a better life, surely that is good enough?

In a quiet, sunlit café nestled in the heart of an old city, two artists sat across from each other, their voices low and contemplative. The first, Clara, was a digital artist whose work had brought her acclaim over the past decade. Her short, tousled hair framed a face that bore the marks of countless hours spent in front of a screen, her fingers still twitching as if they were drawing on an invisible tablet. Opposite her sat Daniel, a younger artist who had recently burst onto the scene with his AI-generated masterpieces. His eyes sparkled with the thrill of new possibilities, yet there was a tension in his voice as he spoke.
“It’s not just about the art anymore,” Daniel was saying, his tone a mixture of excitement and anxiety. “It’s about the code, the algorithms. I don’t even need to draw anymore; the AI does it for me. But I can’t help but wonder… what happens when the AI learns to create without me? What if I become obsolete?”
Clara nodded, her expression understanding but conflicted. “I know the feeling. I’ve spent years perfecting my digital techniques, mastering tools that were meant to make my life easier, not replace me. Now, all I hear about are these AI programs that can mimic my style in seconds. It feels like the ground is shifting beneath my feet.”
As if summoned by their words, the door to the café swung open, and a third artist entered. His clothes were splattered with paint, his hands stained with the colors of his latest work. He carried with him an air of nostalgia, as if he had stepped out of another time entirely. This was Vincent, a veteran of the traditional art world, who had made his name with hand-drawn and hand-colored pieces, long before the advent of digital art.
He approached their table with a wry smile, having overheard the tail end of their conversation. “Mind if I join you?” he asked, not waiting for an answer as he pulled up a chair. “I couldn’t help but overhear. Your worries sound awfully familiar.”
Clara and Daniel exchanged glances, intrigued by this interruption. Vincent continued, his voice thick with the weight of years spent battling his own obsolescence. “You know, there was a time when I was the one being pushed aside. When digital art first started gaining traction, I was furious. How could something created on a computer, with no paint, no brush, no tactile connection to the canvas, be considered real art? I watched as galleries that once displayed my work shifted to showcasing digital creations. I felt like the world was moving on without me.”
Clara leaned forward, her curiosity piqued. “What did you do?”
Vincent chuckled, though there was a trace of bitterness in his laugh. “I adapted. I learned to incorporate digital techniques into my work, found a way to blend the old with the new. But the feeling never quite left me—that nagging fear that everything I’d worked for could be erased with the click of a mouse.”
Daniel frowned, his youthful confidence shaken. “So, this is just… a cycle? Each generation of artists fears being replaced by the next?”
“Seems that way,” Vincent replied, his eyes softening with empathy. “But here’s the thing: art isn’t just about the tools we use. It’s about the vision behind it. Machines, AI, computers—they can mimic, they can replicate, but they can’t feel. They can’t see the world the way we do. That’s something they’ll never take away from us.”
The three artists sat in silence, contemplating the inevitability of change, but also the enduring nature of creativity. In that moment, they understood the irony that connected them—a shared fear of obsolescence that, in truth, only underscored the timelessness of art itself.

[Originally posted in 2021, updated with a summary and small corrections. Further additions in 2024, with references to Oppenheimer and supporting quotations.]
Summary
Good people can focus on doing good. Bad people who are motivated by the nafs can be told of the harms in engaging in it, but it's likely that they will persist. Sometimes however evil leads to some positive outcomes - good people can benefit from these, while still maintaining the wrongfulness of the initial action. 
The slipstream
Where you have two runners or cars, for example, the runner/car who is second benefits from the slipstream of the person in front. The slipstream refers to their meeting less air resistance due to the air being pushed to the side by the person/car in front.
I still remember a Goldman Sachs report from around 2000 which predicted that the technology for streaming videos would initially be funded by the purveyors of porn - which is where the money was.
Once online video streaming became mainstream, it was used by others, e.g., to educate others, pass on useful instructions to others, and even disseminate religious knowledge. Islamic scholars don't deny the use of such streaming technology because of its antecedents.
It is said that Robert Oppenheimer lived with the guilt of his atomic bomb being used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
https://www.nbc.com/nbc-insider/did-oppenheimer-ever-apologize-for-the-atomic-bomb
 
But there was also a spin-off benefit for the rest of us:
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/achre/final/intro_3.html
 
When evil leads to good
We can see similar examples where evil people inspired and motivated by greed or domination go on to do things that can then be used by good people for better ends. Some medical advances in the 20th century (which we all use today) can be attributed to the evil of the Nazis
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/is-it-acceptable-to-use-data-from-nazi-medical-experiments-1.4388509
 
and the NASA space programme was a prime beneficiary of Nazi developments in rocketry.
https://www.nasa.gov/people/wernher-von-braun/
 
An historical precedent
I think an early example of bad people doing things with positive consequences is Khalid ibn al-Walid's initial foray into Persia followed by Umar ibn Khattab's conquest of the country.
and the evil-doers acted out of free will
Indeed, if there are people who, despite information to the contrary, are willing to undertake tasks that contravene moral/ethical scruples - then who are we to complain? No one held a gun to their heads to force them to take those actions. They acted out of free will. If their actions have unintended benefits for others who can put those achievements to good use - that's a gain courtesy of Satan.
It's not just good and evil...
At the moment there are various technologies that are problematic for Muslims e.g. using pigs for human transplantation. But these are only a point along the development journey to having similar technology being used without pigs. So the current work of non-Muslims has the potential for future Muslim benefit.
A personal insight
In the financial markets there are various financial instruments that to my understanding are haram. Spreadbets involve paying interest to a financial intermediary in order to buy far larger quantities of shares (or other commodity) than one could afford with ones own capital. The 'bet' is that the investment will rise and enable the investor to walk away with a much larger return than would have been possible without the leverage provided by the spread betting company. This type of investing can cause harm to the individuals practising it, because losses can be greater than the amounts invested and it can lead to greater volatility in the markets themselves. Knowing that some shares are popular with small investors using spread bets means that other investors may consider it wise to sell when shares are peaking (because leveraged investors are buying) and to buy when they collapse because leveraged investors have had their trades closed. What is wrong behaviour by market participants can therefore create an opportunity for those who are prepared to play the long game.
Yet it could be argued that a capitalist system that encourages such a speculative mentality has enabled the funnelling of trillions of dollars across the world towards the development of e.g. internet technology that may otherwise not have happened or it would have happened at a much slower pace.
For Muslims then, there needs to be a recognition that what is happening around them may well be beneficial in the long-run, but in the short-run there may be practices that are wrong and in which they should not partake.
Individuals and societies
This works at both the level of the individual and that of societies. The latter may well achieve great accomplishments, while still being 'bad', and there are historical examples of societies being much more advanced than others of their time in technological and scientific terms, but still undertaking evil cultural practices. Any scientific knowledge that they passed on would still have been valuable.
Today there can be a tendency of those who have made technological gains to ascribe these to their cultural norms and values - which Muslims may consider to be wrong from an ethical perspective. The ideology of their cultures may or may not have facilitated the advancement - but it does not validate the the ethics of their ideology. For example communism brought a large section of Eastern Europe and Western Asia out of the feudal age and arguably enabled the world to beat Nazism - but does that endorse Communists' correctness of mass collectivisation and the stamping out of religion? No it does not.
a. Communism
Communism is an interesting ideology that shows how it is possible to achieve success for a limited period of time, but to ultimately lose out in the war of longevity. Individuals who subscribed to Marxism were wrong. The whole society was bad. But while condemning both, we can walk away with the benefits they left us with.
b. European slavery system
There was a whole ideology underpinning this purely evil practice. Argued by some to be based on a reading of the Bible that held black people to be sub-human and treated as property*, the system enabled the development of cash crops in the Americas and provided the foundation of modern consumer societies. Ultimately it came to be seen for the evil that it was.
What Egyptians, Communism, Nazism and the European slavery system of the 19th century and other ideologies have in common is that they are now defunct. They enabled progress to be made in some areas, but in the long term they offered no solutions to address human needs.
The lessons for Muslims (starting with Pharoah's wife) has simply been to hang around in order to pick up the pieces and ensure that our ideology persists and outlasts the next round of evil-doers.
In an ideal world ...
People would be inspired to innovate, create and advance based purely on the motivations provided by God. But this ideal does not always happen. 
*Muslims have been accused of having slavery systems as well. But those were completely different in terms of both practice and moral implications.

The proposition that the British Empire "never really went away" but instead "downsized" reflects a view of post-colonial influence that suggests continuity between the British Empire's formal rule and its present-day economic and political ties, particularly with the rich Arab Gulf states. While the British Empire as a formal political entity dissolved in the mid-20th century, this perspective argues that Britain's influence persisted, transforming from direct colonial rule to a more subtle but still significant form of power and influence.
Economic Ties and Arms Trade
One of the most visible aspects of this continuing influence is the strong economic ties between the UK and the Arab Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and others. The UK is a significant exporter of arms to these countries, with Saudi Arabia being one of the largest customers. This arms trade not only supports British industries and employment but also reinforces political and military relationships between the UK and these Gulf states. The reliance of these nations on British military technology and expertise can be seen as a continuation of the influence that Britain once exerted more overtly during the imperial period.
Investments in British Property and Economy
Arab Gulf states have also invested heavily in the British economy, particularly in real estate, financial services, and other high-profile sectors. London's property market, for instance, has seen substantial investment from Gulf monarchies and sovereign wealth funds. These investments benefit the British economy and contribute to the UK's status as a global financial hub. The economic interdependence created by these investments is another form of influence, where former colonies (or regions within the imperial sphere) now play a crucial role in the British economy.
Employment for British Expats
The presence of British expatriates in the Gulf states, particularly in high-skilled sectors such as finance, education, and engineering, reflects another layer of this ongoing relationship. British professionals are often sought after for their expertise and experience, and their employment in these regions can be traced back to historical ties established during the colonial period. The continued demand for British expertise suggests a lasting influence and a form of soft power, where British culture, education, and professional norms continue to shape the region.
Political Influence and Leadership Support
The assertion that the leaders of these Gulf states were either appointed by Britain or have their tenure supported by Britain touches on the historical reality that many current Gulf monarchies have roots in British colonial or protectorate arrangements. For example, the Al-Saud family in Saudi Arabia and the Al-Thani family in Qatar consolidated power during periods when Britain had significant influence over the Arabian Peninsula. While these leaders are now independent, the historical ties and ongoing strategic partnerships suggest that Britain continues to exert some level of influence, particularly through defense agreements and diplomatic support.
Continuity of Influence
The idea that the British Empire "downsized" rather than disappeared reflects the continuity of influence, albeit in a different form. The mechanisms of control and influence have shifted from direct colonial administration to economic dependency, strategic partnerships, and soft power. The British Empire in its classical form may be gone, but the relationships, institutions, and dependencies it created continue to shape international relations and economics in ways that can be seen as a legacy of that empire.
Counterarguments
However, it is also important to consider the counterarguments to this proposition. The Gulf states are now sovereign nations with their own complex political dynamics, and their relationship with Britain is one of mutual interest rather than imperial domination. The influence of other global powers, such as the United States and China, also plays a significant role in these regions, which complicates the notion that Britain maintains a unique or dominant position of influence.
In conclusion, while the British Empire as a formal entity no longer exists, the networks of influence, economic ties, and political relationships established during the imperial period have persisted in ways that benefit the UK. These relationships, particularly with the Arab Gulf states, suggest that Britain's influence did not vanish but instead evolved, leading to a form of continuity that some might argue represents a "downsized" empire.

In this thread there was a half jokey but also serious issue that I raised:
At some point Muslims will ask whether conjugal relations with androids are allowed and we can predict the answer will be no.
 
Since I first started that thread a lot has happened and I think it's worth introducing some new variables to the discussion.
There was a time when men who dressed as women (and vice versa) did so either for humour or if it was in some way related to their sexuality the attempt would seem a bit ridiculous. Nowadays though fantasy can be more readily realised with the aid of technology.
In a similar vein men who play with dolls (this is serious, stay with me) are faintly creepy and weird. But technology moves on and at some point the dolls will pass for humans. While orthodox Muslims may well be aghast at the idea of relations between us and the androids, clearly this will be considered to be progress amongst some people. They may not currently regard it as such but their ideological progeny will.
But then another issue will emerge. If someone gains emotional and other forms of support from their android, what if they want to pass on their wealth to the android?
 
https://www.ft.com/content/b9b78aae-1f32-11e9-a46f-08f9738d6b2b
 
So while we have had dystopian science fiction prognosticating about robots AI becoming 'self-aware' and stealing the planet from us what if such a loss can happen without such a confrontational dystopia?
What if large numbers of humans give up on human-to-human relations and instead take up with androids who will never argue back, will always say yes and be physically whatever people want them to be.
And as a reward for this their human companions leave their possessions to robots?
It could be that it is selfishness and narcissism that disinherits us and nothing more sinister.