Eddie Mecca

MENA and S. Asian Muslims need to start engaging in loud, frank discussions regarding topics related to manifestations of Third World social backwardness such as: excessive use of power (control) over subordinates in workplace situations, self-hatred, xenophobia, classism, regionalism, colorism, sectarianism, nationalism, sexism etc.—as fear societies (or honor-shame based cultures) we tend to sweep everything underneath the rug—we've tried this approach for centuries and it doesn't seem to be working—perhaps we need to try something new—we want white liberals to be vocal and aggressive when speaking out against Islamophobia but within our own intimate circles of friends/relatives we hypocritically dismiss examples of anti-blackness with exemptions like, "Oh, they're just joking" or "Well, that was one isolated experience/incident" or "They didn't mean it like it sounded" or "They don't know any better" etc.—we're an extremely racist people and we're in deep denial about it—as non-black people of color (POC) we settle into harmful neutral territory and fully embrace a color hierarchy of complexions (e.g. Yasir Habib's 'Lady of Heaven' where the villains are portrayed with stereotypical dark skin and classic African features)

The beheading of John The Baptist (peace be upon him) and attempted slaying of Jesus (peace be upon him) by chief priests and elders was the last straw for Bani Israel—that's a wrap folks, you can go home now—hmm, how did I anticipate you were going to cry "context"?—fine, let's do the context thing—let's go all the way back to Chapter 19—Christ speaks about a myriad of subjects including marriage, divorce, keeping the commandments of Moses and how the Twelve Apostles will judge Israel on the Day of Resurrection—in Chapter 20, mother of James and John (two sons of Zebedee) asks Jesus to place her sons in high-ranking stations in Heaven—Jesus answers that only the Father is capable of granting such positions in the kingdom (Matthew 20:20–23)—Jesus speaks of humility, servitude to humanity, selflessness (e.g. washing feet of the disciples during Last Supper)—Jesus heals the blindness of roadside beggars—Jesus (peace be upon him) speaks of forthcoming persecutions at the hands of the scribes and Pharisees who were working in cahoots with Roman authorities—enter chapter 21—Jesus performs a miracle by cursing and drying up a fig tree which Christian scholars interpret as symbolically representing Israel—cursing of the fig tree represents Israel's failed mission as holy conveyors of God's message unto the nations—Jesus begins the parable of the vineyard—tenants of a vineyard refuse to give their agreed rent—tenants of the vineyard mistreat and kill the servants—"that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zechariah, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:35)—tenants of the vineyard then kill the owner's son—the parable is referring to Israel's history of persecuting messengers of God (Acts 7:52), as well as how the men attacking him (Jesus) were opposed to God's true message—Jewish leaders and elders don't seem to grasp the seriousness and full gravity of the situation

I agree—while it's true that not all Arabs, Persians and South Asians think alike it's equally true that mass social thinking patterns prevail among said communities and a derogatory African (i.e. black) depiction is often present in many aspects of modern MENA culture—these prejudices are often outgrowths of MENA countries cucking to modernity where Eurocentric worldviews are heralded—these trends can also be traced to ancient superstitious attitudes—light complexions, blue (or green) eyes, blonde hair, Nordic facial features are considered beautiful blessings—while thick lips, broad noses, dark skin and kinky hair are thought of as ugly, uncivilized and associated with plagues and curses.

Throughout history elites, nations, organizations, agencies, thinktanks etc. have worked together in secret in order to unleash surreptitious exploits— there's no reason for thinking this practice has stopped/ceased—Saddam working hand-in-hand with al-Qaeda, Saddam and weapons of mass destruction (WMD), 9/11 Attacks by 19 Arab coconspirators—when "conspiracies" help catapult the Eurocentric imperialist narrative then they're considered acceptable and logical—Syrian "civil war" being instigated by outside agitators, Israeli covert logistics assisting ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq, Sykes-Picot Agreement ,etc., are all examples of brown people allowing their imaginations to run wild from the perspective of Middle America—Yesteryear’s "conspiracy theory" often become today’s incontestable fact—MK-ULTRA turned out to be a real government program, Dalai Lama turned out to be a CIA informant, Big Tobacco knew cigarettes caused cancer for decades, Tuskegee Experiment actually occurred, USS Maddox staged a hoax attack on non-existent Viet Cong torpedo boats in order to provoke further escalation of the Vietnam conflict and the list goes on-and-on—term "conspiracy theorist" is simply a new boogie man expression like the propaganda term "terrorist"—or "infidel" or "heretic" used in medieval Europe against non-Christians or anyone questioning the official orthodox view of the Catholic church—people are being manipulated all the time in order to protect the existing state of affairs.

That's a Noam Chomsky quote

BOO-YA! (insert mic drop emoji here)—@Abu Nur, you nailed it!— "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?" Matthew 21:42 He (Jesus) is definitely talking about the cessation of Israelite prophethood and the commencement of something new—regarding Matthew 21:42-43 a popular blogger writes: The traditional Christian understanding of “the stone which the builders rejected” is that it refers to Jesus Christ himself. It’s the interpretation which I had always accepted until very recently. In fact, it seemed so ‘obvious’ to me that it never occurred to me that there might be any other possible understanding of the reference. It was therefore with some surprise that I found some Muslim interpreters insisting that the “stone” was in fact the Arab people descended from Ishmael, to whom the Message of the Qur’an was given through the Prophet Muhammad – and from whom a ‘mountain’ has arisen which fills the whole earth (Daniel 2:35 in the ‘Old Testament’ of the Bible). Because it was so ‘obvious’ to me that the “stone” was Jesus Christ himself, I naturally thought this Muslim interpretation was absurd – an evidence of Muslims trying too hard to find Islam and Muhammad in Biblical prophecy. I definitely did not just immediately exclaim: “That’s right! Why couldn’t I see that before?” However, I did continue to give it consideration, and seek out Muslim writers who could give a clear explanation of why they understood the prophecy in this way. I don’t remember now where it was I found the explanation which finally ‘opened my eyes’; but the explanation now seems clear and simple to me. The whole point of the parable, of course, was to reach the conclusion that the Jewish “tenants” of the “vineyard” (God’s kingdom) had failed so miserably in their duty, and had proven to be so treacherous toward God, that their honored position in the kingdom would be removed from them and another people would be given that position – another people who would produce the ‘fruit’ of the kingdom and render it up to God. That is the inevitable conclusion of the parable, and in Matthew’s account the listeners themselves were so taken in by the parable that they themselves rendered the verdict that the “tenants” would be destroyed by the owner of the vineyard and others would get the lease. By the way, this is an example in the Gospels that clearly shows the Bible is not inerrantly ‘inspired’. In Matthew’s Gospel, when Jesus asked the question “What will he do to those tenants”, it was the listeners who responded with the verdict that those “wretches” would be killed and the vineyard leased to others. In Mark and Luke, though, it was Jesus who answered his own question. In fact, in Luke, the listeners were so far from rendering the verdict themselves that they responded “surely not” when Jesus gave the verdict. (I love the way the King James Version renders the phrase: “God forbid!” However, “surely not” is actually a closer rendering of the phrase. “God” is not present in the Greek phrase. More literally, it would be “Let it not be”.) However, this is also a good example to show that while the details of the story may vary (and in fact are technically contradictory), the point of the story is not affected. Notice, then, that it is in support of this verdict that the tenants are to be replaced with other more faithful people that Jesus refers to Psalm 118:22: “What then is this that is written: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’?” The point of the parable was not that one of the emissaries of the owner would be restored in order to collect the rightful ‘fruit’ – not even the “son” who had been killed – but that the tenants themselves would be replaced. The point of Jesus’ quotation of the Psalm was that the Jewish Scriptures themselves declared this very thing. In Matthew, this is clear in that immediately following the listeners’ verdict that the treacherous tenants would be killed and replaced, Jesus said “Have you never read in the Scriptures…?” In other words, it’s as if he had said “Isn’t that precisely what the Psalmist said?” Then Jesus followed up the quotation with his own conclusion: “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” He did not say “Therefore I tell you, the son whom you will treacherously slay will be resurrected to inherit the kingdom.” Then, immediately after saying that another nation/people will be given the kingdom of God, he says “And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” There is nothing in the statements of Jesus to indicate that the stone was a person rather than a “people/nation”, and everything to indicate that the “stone” and the “nation” were one and the same. If possible, this conclusion is even clearer in Luke’s account of the parable. In his account, the listeners had exclaimed “surely not” when Jesus said that the tenants would be destroyed and the vineyard leased to others. Jesus responded by saying “What then is this that is written…?” Nothing could be clearer than that Jesus was asking how they could object to his conclusion, since the Psalmist had said the same thing: the Jewish nation which was currently the “cornerstone” in God’s kingdom – but which had failed miserably in its duty to bring the kingdom to all nations according to the promise to Abraham that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3) – would be replaced by another “stone” which the Jewish builders had rejected; and that “stone” would produce the intended “fruit”. Who that other nation/stone was should have been obvious to those who were familiar with the Hebrew Torah and the promises made to Abraham. God not only promised to make a great nation or nations from the seed of Abraham’s second son Isaac, but he promised that he would produce a great nation from the seed of Ishmael (Genesis 17:20 and 21:13 and 18). The Jewish “builders” weren’t too pleased with that, though. Although they did not entirely delete God’s promise concerning Ishmael from their Scriptures, they tried to obscure and cover it up as much as possible. After the Genesis 17:20 promise that God would bless Ishmael and make him fruitful, making a great nation of him, He then proceeded to say in verse 21 “And [or also] I will establish my covenant with Isaac…” But the Jews (and Christians) have, without any logical reason at all, read that as “But I will establish my covenant with Isaac”; as if it were being said “but My blessing of Ishmael is really inconsequential; my real blessing and covenant will be with Isaac.” (See “To Whom Was the Land of Canaan Given?”) Although Isaac was never at any time Abraham’s “only son”, they nevertheless inserted Isaac into the story of Abraham’s near sacrifice of his “only son” as if Ishmael didn’t exist (Genesis 22:2 ff) . When God promised to bless Ishmael and make him fruitful, He said (Genesis 16:12) “He shall be a fruitful man, his hand with every man and every man’s hand with him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his kinsmen.” However, to show their hatred of Ishmael, the Jews (and Christians following in their footsteps) distorted that by claiming “fruitful man” should be read “wild ass of a man”, and “with” should be read “against”. (“Was Ishmael a ‘Wild Ass’ Man?”) When Sarah (in Genesis 21) became upset at Ishmael’s laughter, the Jews have interpreted that laughter to be laughing at (mocking) Isaac (although the text itself only says that Sarah saw Ishmael laughing – not laughing at anyone or anything). The Christian apostle Paul even interpreted this to mean that Ishmael was persecuting Isaac (Galatians 4:29) [“Why was Sarah so angry with Hagar and Ishmael?”] . The Ishmaelites don’t figure much in the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures because the Jews figured they were at best unimportant. At worst, the Jews despised the Arab descendants of Ishmael. Who else, then, could the nation/stone which the Jewish “builders” rejected be but that great nation descended from Abraham’s firstborn son Ishmael? The promise of God to Abraham had been that in him all nations would be blessed. When the descendants of Isaac were rejected by God, then the descendants of that other son replaced them. God raised up a prophet from the seed of Ishmael; his Arab brothers embraced his/His message; and instead of thinking that they should hoard God’s blessing to themselves (as the Jews did), they fulfilled the duty of God’s covenant by bringing the message of God to all the nations. The Christian Church did indeed keep alive the name of Jesus Christ, and expanded greatly. But while doing so, it distorted the message so greatly that it can hardly be recognized for “the way” that Jesus proclaimed. When Christianity became allied with the Roman Empire, it was more a defeat for the “Christian” version of the kingdom of God than a triumph. Rome conquered Christianity rather than vice versa. Only the Message of God through Muhammad, originally delivered to the nation descended from Ishmael, has spread the message – in its purity – of God’s kingdom throughout the earth. This “nation” has indeed been a faithful and fruitful “cornerstone” in the kingdom of God.

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you (Children of Israel) and shall be given to a nation (Muslim Ummah) bringing forth the fruits thereof" Matthew 21:43

Im just curious but from where do you get any hint that this is talking about the Arab Ishmaelite? What makes you think it's referring to the Swedish, Finnish, Poles, Irish, Greeks & Romans? If you believe my interpretation is from Mars then your interpretation must be from a parallel universe.

Somewhere between 66 - 80% of humanity will be wiped out

Nearly 1 million Afghan refugees in Iran

Iran, Azerbaijan or Pakistan

Almost but no cigar...it means termination of Hebrew prophecy with Jesus (s) and new Abrahamic covenant begins with the Arabs/Ishmaelites/Muslims

Why are we so concerned about the Trump administration and Bin Salmān regime labeling of Hezbollah, Tehran, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Muslim Brotherhood or whomever as terrorists and radicals? Why this defeatist mentality brother? Actually are you aware that Iran was one of the first countries in the world to openly condemn a decision by the US to designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization?

What happens is Shi'a members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Muslim Brotherhood, Tanzeem-e-Islami etc. usually end up compromising certain aspects of their Shi'ism (theologically, methodologically etc.) in place of Sunni-led, social activism—such members are typically motivated by pragmatism

سلام‎/Salām/Peace, 1.) أخـي/akhi, your thinking is too rigid and too "black-and-white"—learn to think in a multilayered manner and adopt a multipronged approach—allow the Saudi propagandists say whatever they want—our job is to acknowledge truth wherever and whenever we find it—even if Shayṭān speaks حقّ‎/haqq/truth our duty/command is to follow truth (regardless of who speaks it)—this is what Prophet Muhammad (s) commanded—don't worry about being a politician, don't worry about being an apologist, don't worry about the information being misinterpreted in the public eye, don't worry about falling into the labyrinth that the Shayṭān has set up for you—if the Ottomans did something correct or coherent then we acknowledge it—if the Safavids did something historically reprehensible then we condemn it—we shouldn't be cheerleaders or flag-wavers routing for our respective side due to one-sidedness or partiality or tribalism—follow the haqq and Allah will protect you—be sincere and naive and follow truth—Allah will guard you against all evil 2.) Ikhwāni influence on Sunnism is equal to or greater than Wahhabi influence on Sunnism—Ikhwāni influence is tremendous—I'm familiar with the rivalry between MB members and Wahhabis—I'm 50/50 on whether or not Khomeini (r) personally met with Al Banna (r)—if someone asked me on the street, I would reply by saying something like, "well, I read online that they once met in 1938 (in Egypt) but the sources weren't the greatest"—for me whether or not they physically met one another is besides the point—Khomeini and his inner circle met with the elite members of the Brotherhood (Al Banna's successors)—successive Iranian clerics and political hierarchy have likewise met with them throughout the years—is Hamas a MB offshoot? Yes it is and IRI works with them—is Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) a MB offshoot? Yes they are and IRI works with them—was the Brotherhood inspired by the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran? Yes they were—does Iranian leadership consider MB a potential ally (despite severe military confrontations and political setbacks with its Syrian branch) in exporting its pan-Islamic regional vision abroad? Yes it does—does MB support the Houthi rebellion against Saudi homogeny in Yemen? Yes they do—did Ayatollah Khamenei translate Sayyid Qutb’s works from Arabic into Farsi—Yes he did—did Ayatollah Khamenei translate Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab's works from Arabic into Farsi?—No he didn't