Silas

Sam Altman is Jewish Ilya Sutskever is Jewish (Israeli) Reid Hoffman is Jewish (and was involved with Jeffrey Epstein) Greg Brockman is Jewish most of OpenAI board members are Jewish. https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/tech-and-start-ups/article-752551 It might not be an Israeli company, but the people who run it are Jewish

ChatGPT was designed by a Jewish company. Things are changing --western peoples are waking up to the realities of the ME and the plight of the Palestinian people. They sympathize But if anyone in my country criticizes Israel, its policies, or its supporters, we could get fired from out jobs, lose access to our bank accounts, or even get arrested In order to do contract work for state governments in the US, we have to sign loyalty oaths to Israel, and promise not to support BDS Most people in my country want a two-state solution, freedom for Palestinians, normalized relations with Iran, and the end of all the neocon war-mongering nonsense. But you would never know it, because our media speaks in our name, and spreads disinformation and lies

Now the IDF is hitting schools and ambulances https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/11/4/israel-hamas-war-live-20-dead-in-israeli-attack-on-school-ministry Political pressure is building in the US, and people here are getting more outraged by Israeli actions by the day

I don't think Hamas has anywhere near the international support it thinks it has and correct me if I am wrong, but the Iranians have not traditionally viewed Sunni radical groups like Hamas favorably one can fully support Palestinian liberation (as I do), and not be a Hamas supporter. My biggest worry is that the supposed "Iranian leadership support of Hamas" (and how true that is, I don't know), will serve as a pretense for corrupt world leaders like Biden to strike Iran. It is like letting your foul-mouthed, aggressive friend, get you into a brawl with a whole football squad In the US, there is very little support among the population for Israel, especially its actions toward the Palestinians. What our media and corporate overlords say is one thing --what the people say in the streets is entirely different. Those students who spoke up for Palestine at Harvard are being harassed, threatened, etc. Those who speak up online in social media are doxxed, banned, threatened, etc. by groups like the ADL and SPLC. There is even an organization called "The Clarion Project" which is basically run by Israeli intelligence, that monitors what people say in the US, looking for "antisemitism" (and they are viciously anti-Muslim).

This whole thing is profoundly depressing I have been firmly on the side of the Palestinian people and their effort to achieve franchisement and some kind of legitimacy, And while I have not always agreed with their approaches, I have understood the situation ... but regardless of the truth or fictions regarding the Hamas attack, it was largely directed at civilians, and amounted to an explosion of rage against the defenseless. I have seen videos from Hamas itself where fighters are gunning down families ... and the whole enterprise was to provoke a barbaric response from the Zionists --which they now have the green light to conduct. Tens of thousands of people are likely to die as Israeli tanks roll into Gaza meanwhile, the US MSM features pundits who say they support Israel 100%! --this is complete nonsense. The average American views the Israelis as a bunch of thugs, and thinks Israel is an apartheid state. They don't like Hamas either, but few know anything about organization I don't know where this is all going, but I would be very cautious. Hamas would love to drag the whole world into this bloodbath, and the Jews are just looking for an excuse to commit atrocities against Muslims we need to take the high ground here --all of us

Two ways of answering this 1. There is no concept of "straight" --because that implies there are other options. Heterosexuality is that which nature defines, and Allah intends. 2. Humans are not simply driven by habit or inclination --they are driven by biological impulse, divine decree, etc.

I don't think there really is any such thing as "gay people". There are people who have an inclination towards their own sex, but that is a habit, an impulse, or a temptation. It is likewise similar to people who commit adultery (zina)--is a person born an "adulterer"? every sinner wants to somehow feel justified in his sin, or to explain it away in essentialist terms: "well, I suppose I was always meant to be a gambler, a homosexual, an adulterer --nothing can change this". And in this way, he elevates his behavior to a fixed identity The Quran is clear on these matters --I don't need to point you to the relevant passages, as others here are far more qualified to do so. Think of it this way: the drug-addict lies and steals to feed his habit. He loses his wife, his money, even his house. And while he devises new schemes and justifications for continuing his habit, the one who is right with Allah merely says "maybe it is time to finally stop"?

There is a website in the US that lists and describes all the DEI/CRT programs, initiatives, and mandates at most of the universities and colleges in the country (also has private secondary schools as well) https://criticalrace.org This nonsense is everywhere. At the university I attended many years ago, they now require students to undergo "antiracism training" and to sign documents admitting their guilt for being white westerners. Some schools require students to read Ibram X Kendi (who despite his Muslim-sounding name is about as Muslim as Donal Trump) and to post videos of themselves on the campus website declaring agreement and solidarity with the contents of his book. There are "Bias-Incident Response Teams" that prowl campuses look for "micro-aggressions". Students can anonymously file complaints against faculty and other students, who are then dragged in from of the diversity board and the local police, and asked to explain themselves. and people in the US have the gall to criticize Iran's treatment of its citizens? At least teachers in Iran are not dragged in front of commissars if they declare that biological sex is real!

It is the barren fullness, naked reeds brushed from sand-ridden oblivion and the Prophet’s voice is only heard where the ear stretches to its limit like a brass tambourine that echoes in the soul sunblind and skyless

Beautifully done

I have often wondered if most of the Salafist radicalism is a consequence of radical politics --basically men looking to justify political extremism with rigid and incorrect interpretations of Islam?

Forgive me, but I will take a slightly different approach to this: I believe the Cosmological argument is correct, but I will turn my attention towards the agnostic or atheist argument for a moment. The agnostic/atheist argument makes certain fundamental claims 1. Human have no "free will". In philosophical language, this means that "there is nothing in the mind, that has not come through the senses". We are "blank slates", collection of neurons waiting to receive input or imprints 2. If there is no free-will, then by necessity, the universe is predictable, and if it is predictable, it is deterministic 3. If it is deterministic, any action or belief can be accounted for, because it is simply a question of input (environment), and stimulus Those are the central claims. I now comment: 1. If the mind cannot conceive anything beyond what is "given" by the material and contingent universe, or imagine things that do not exist, it cannot come up with the concept of an ontologically incontingent God. Likewise, it could not come up with impossible creatures and realities--because these things have no basis in the world around us. You cannot have it both ways: we cannot have unbound imaginations that can leap beyond reality, and a mind that is beholden to everything we see, taste, feel, smell, and hear. 2. The universe is demonstrably unpredictable, both at a subatomic level, and at the level of human beings when choices are made. A man can "deny" that which presents itself to his senses, and be absolutely convinced he is correct. 3. We cannot account for every action and response. The world is not deterministic. So we have a will, and it is "free" within a certain respect, and within this reality. -- I know move to a more theological realm, and I will ask the atheist, or the agnostic: what is this intuition of Allah that vexes you? we do not worry ourselves, on any kind of fundamental, existential level, over things that surround us in this world, but the very idea of Allah is both immediate to you and outrageous I know logically that the Cosmological argument is correct, but I know personally that other arguments are at play. We would not be having this conversation if Allah did not exist. There would be no foundation or basis for any of this. "as close to you as the jugular"

If NATO were to bring all its might against an enemy, that enemy would be obliterated. Aside from the US, it would include the UK, Germany, etc. --the force is overwhelming but any conflict could play out differently, depending on how many members actually join the fight Russia has obviously proven to be very weak from a conventional military aspect. Poor training, bad leadership, bad morale, outdated equipment, etc. But as others have pointed out, modern warfare is very different from the past --it is extremely difficult to hold territory militarily. Doesn't matter how strong NATO or Russia are, they can't simply walk into some place and claim it

Good discussion, but I have to ask: what does "Gentile" really mean? If we say that such a person is not a cultural and theological Jew, we might be able to claim the Prophet is a "Gentile" But the Prophet was Arab, and Semitic --he was not Chinese or Celt. From my very limited perspective, it seems that Jews want to use a very narrow definition of Gentile to claim that prophets beyond the Second Temple period are impossible.

A big controversy within Christianity is the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism in regards to the criteria for entrance into Heaven. Catholics maintain that entrance into God's kingdom requires absolute faith and good works (adherence to the tenants of the faith, living a virtuous life, etc.) Protestants of all denominations view it differently: they say one must start with absolute faith, turn his heart and soul over to this faith, and regardless of what happens in this world, he *could* be "saved" (enter paradise) There are so many excellent Islamic scholars here, and I would like to know your view as Muslims on this issue? The proclamation of faith comes before the Ancillaries of faith (for Shia) yes? But are the ancillaries an absolute requirement to gain God's kingdom? forgive my ignorance on this, as I speak from someone who came out of the Christian tradition, but who is increasingly drawn to Islam. This is a question I have been asked more than once

It is complete lunacy. Many companies have fallen for this nonsense. Victoria's Secret, a large lingerie company, went from using thin, beautiful models, to using morbidly obese women, or even transgender "women" in their advertising. The company lost millions and their stock tanked.

From what I have heard, China wants to build a pipeline from Saudi Arabia to China through Iran and the central Asian countries. The only way it can do this, is to have stability in the region, and agreements with both nations. If such a network of pipelines were build, it would greatly strengthen China at the expense of the rest of the world. Iran is absolutely essential in the new world order: with its vast oil reserves, lithium deposits, educated population, and manufacturing capacity, it can be the dominant player in the region. Goods can be shipped to Europe through Iran from India and southeast Asia once restrictions and sanctions are lifted --this wrecks the Chinese "belt and road initiative" The US, and other nations, need to normalize relations with Iran. End the silly sanctions and embargoes. Isolating Iran is contrary to US interests, and only placates Israel.

he is using Persianpod101, and a couple books. I've thought about getting him an online tutor. iTalki is a good resource for that. hardest part is the alphabet and writing (obviously)

One note: when the demons possessed the pigs it was the pigs themselves who threw themselves over the cliff it was not Jesus who commanded them to do this. and I do not need to defend the money-changers or those engaged in usury against the whip of Jesus--which is symbolic, in and of itself, as a way to lead the profligate back to the grace of God but I would ask, what truly is sin? Because to me, it is not some accidental or legalistic thing --it is a willing rebellion against the will of God.

"For all intents and purposes, isn’t the ideological synonymous with the philosophical? " It is not. The philosophical and the ideological have different formal objects and agendas. The philosophical seeks to understand first principles, the frontiers of metaphysics, and the limits of human knowledge. The ideological is directed towards human endeavors, outcomes, and practical matters Now to more earthly matters ... Are you making the claim that property should not exist? In other words, that my claim on a given object, or even myself, is somehow invalid? I would counter by saying that the second I give up my rights to property, someone will claim those rights, oftentimes with the backing of government. I am pretty sure the Cambodians who had their homes confiscated and were exiled to the rice fields had concrete ideas about private property. These hand-me-down Marxist explanations as to why they deserved to have their possessions taken from them were of cold comfort. Likewise, you seem to be suggesting that a person does not have absolute right to the property of themselves. Does a man have a right to ownership over another man's body under the pretense that the other man should be subject to collective ownership? Enjoying the fruits which Allah gives us is not the same thing as pretending to be God. I can claim that I own myself, and that God is the ultimate owner, without inviting in some pernicious idea that other men also have some absolute claim over me.

Not to get too deep into semantics, but it is important here. You state: "So metaphysics seems to be an ideology of being" to which I say, metaphysics is a philosophy of being. Now why is this important? Because if we take the position of Ibn Sina, Aquinas, or even Gilson, ideology is of the practical order, while metaphysics and philosophy are of the speculative order (which goes all the way back to Aristotle). The OED defines ideology as: "Any wide-ranging system of beliefs, ways of thought, and categories that provide the foundation of programmes of political and social action: an ideology is a conceptual scheme with a practical application" Islam is not simply directed towards the practical order, although it does deal with practical things. It is not simply cultural, political, or civic. Allah is the formal object of Islam, not the society of man Now as to your question " if one society chooses the market, another socialism, and a third feudalism, what makes one of these systems superior?", I am not sure I suggested one system was better than another. My general point was not to fall into the trap of defining man as homo economicus, and assigning greater importance to the market than which it is entitled. Socialism may work perfectly fine among good, honest, men. But those men are rare, unfortunately. But I tend toward the position of Weaver that property is the "last metaphysical right" --if I am not permitted possessions, land, or ownership over myself, I have no rights.

As to the other issue brought up by Northwest: "Capital is being used as a means to impose harmful agendas such as depopulation, LBGTQ+I, extreme feminism, outsourcing, neoliberal economics, and so on. It is responsible for everything that the authentic Right and Left justly oppose, both in the social and economic spheres. I am simply opposed to this current system." I can sympathize, and agree with for the most part. But I would say that we can "deploy capital" towards things that are harmful to society, or things that are beneficial (or neither). The market is not the problem, it is the people in the market.

Here is the problem with your argument: you are elevating ideology above metaphysics and theology. Islam may contain ideology, but it is not ideological, and this is a fundamental flaw western scholars make when trying to understand the religion. A passage from Richard M. Weaver is instructive here: "Every man in a culture has three levels of conscious reflection: his specific ideas about things, his general beliefs, and his metaphysical dream. The first constitutes his worldliness, the second is applied to certain choices as they present themselves and the third which is the most important is his intuitive feeling about the immanent nature of reality." The first two of those things he lists fall under the umbrella of ideology. In the fullest sense, ideology involves praxis, and is always directed at the endeavors of this world: political, civic, or cultural. The Marxist dresses up his ideology to be something more than it is, because his metaphysical dream is limited and materialist. The Muslim theologian/philosopher does not adhere to these limits. Islam is not an "ideology of ideologies", it is metaphysical. That is its foundation.

It is when we elevate an economic or ideological principal above everything else, that is when we get into trouble. "Socialism" like "Capitalism" is not only an economic system, but an ideology. Ayn Rand elevated capitalism to an ethos. The Communists elevated socialism to an ethos and a guiding principal of life. Our markets and trinkets do not define us anymore than our labors in field or factory. Allah does not see "classes"

An elegant and moving poem: nicely done Yusuf