Jordan Peterson's Message To The Muslim World

[Eddie Mecca]

On 8/4/2022 at 3:24 PM, Northwest said:

I do sense that some Muslims tend to place excessive blame on the white Western right

My friend, denial ain't merely a river in Egypt—look at this website and you'll see Muslims criticizing and critiquing other Muslims and condemning deplorable aspects of Islamic history—this is healthy and a good practice—do whites do this sort of rigorous inward reflection on regular basis?—have whites ever critically examined their own cultural heritage, history, worldview etc. with a fearless introspection?—perhaps an isolated thinker here or there—more times than not such conversations are swept underneath the rug—Caucasians insist on an echo chamber and when the occasional dissenter puts forth an unpopular opinion he (she) is quickly denounced as "self-hating" and browbeaten into compliance/conformity—whites have Nerfed the world (i.e. institutions, academia, entertainment etc.) in order to suppress interruptions in familiar/comfortable cognitive constructs—any reputable psychologist will tell you that before one can tackle any problem, he (she) has to (first) recognize that a particular problem exists—progress can only be made with a deep self-examination, identification, acknowledgement, acceptance etc.—only then can potential remedies can be offered/suggested as real solutions.  

Edited August 6, 2022 by Eddie Mecca

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 8/4/2022 at 11:54 PM, Northwest said:

Much of the immigration is also detrimental to Shia communities, in that the immigrants tend to be violent, criminal Wahhabi–Salafi elements. White people in the West largely oppose Muslims on the basis of their encounters with the Wahhabi–Salafi migrants. Instead of criticising native Westerners, Muslims, including Shias, should be more eager to limit the importation of extremist migrants and other undesirable elements, many of whom are actually sponsored by Western globalist elites, including those that run Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.

Hi, much of Immigrants have been from neutral Sunnis who have live in balance with shias in their motherlands for centuries nevertheless I don't deny existance of few bad apples between them anyway both of sunni migrants & native westerners have been affected through promotion of "Wahhabism–Salafims" in MSM which you can rarely can see a sunni religious scholars between war refugees because majority of them have been  killed by "Wahhabi–Salafi" terrorists in their mother lands which when sunni refugees have reached to Europ & America so then they have asked for a Sunni scholar from Turkey & KSA or Egypt which due to  shallow presence of Egypt especially Al-Azhar scholars it has caused affecting of them again by "Wahhabism–Salafims" of Turkey & KSA in European & America .

10 hours ago, Northwest said:

But the Americans, like the early Muslims, were conquering a pagan society, in this case that of the Indians, and in both Christianity and Islam pagans are not allowed religious liberty, instead being liable to forced conversion after a certain period of “grace.” Part of the problem also lies in the fact that some Muslims who do not understand their own religion criticise American Christians for treating the pagan Indians harshly—as though Muslims would have acted substantially differently. People view the past through modern eyes.

It has been claimed by by Christian colonizers for an excuse for genocide or forced convetion of native Americans which Anglo saxon colonizers in similar fashion of spanish colonizers when they met Native Americans at first they have destroyed & looted all of their heritage then they have gave wrong interpretation about beliefs of native Americans so therefore we  can't be sure about their claims about paganism of native Americans which also in few survided stories & myths of native Americans we can find some traces of divine religions likewise christanity & Islam which still now neo christian missionaries are trying to adopt their procedure with their stories & myths even in similar fashion some of  Sunni missionaries have followed procedure of neo christian missionaries  in finding traces of stories of traveling muslim voyagers to America even Australia in stories of native Americans to show them as ancestors of them in order to convert to Islam.

Quote

in both Christianity and Islam pagans are not allowed religious liberty, instead being liable to forced conversion after a certain period of “grace.”

This maybe true in Christanity but on the other hand it's not true about Islam which forced conversion is only a "Wahhabi–Salafi" doctrine which during era of prophet muhammad (pbu) , his procedure has been based on sending missioners to  tribes after requesting of some people who have heard or belived to him as a minority between their tribes anyway sometimes he had to fight with elders of their tribes due to killing of his missionary groups & waging war against him & minority converted muslims in their tribes  which in most of times Imam Ali (عليه السلام)  as commander of his army  has been sent  for defeating elites of pagans which after demise of prophet Muhammad (pbu)  their hidden hate toward him  due to killing of majority of elders of pagans in each tribe has been one of great  reasons of  usurping his right  as successor of prophet Muhammad (pbu) anyway policy of three caliphs so then cursed Ummayids & Abbasids has been based on forced conversion or taking astronamical Jaziya from non muslims.

[Ashvazdanghe]

11 hours ago, Northwest said:

America was founded on colonisation and discrimination. But the Americans, like the early Muslims, were conquering a pagan society, in this case that of the Indians, and in both Christianity and Islam pagans are not allowed religious liberty, instead being liable to forced conversion after a certain period of “grace.” Part of the problem also lies in the fact that some Muslims who do not understand their own religion criticise American Christians for treating the pagan Indians harshly—as though Muslims would have acted substantially differently. People view the past through modern eyes.

Question 18: What Is The Purpose of Jizya?

Question: The purpose of the Prophet hood of the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).a.) was to guide the people and show them the right path which is connected to spiritualism, whereas on the other side we see in the Islamic laws that it is not according to the real purpose of Islam (to guide the people on the right path) as it is revealed:

“If Christians and Jews are ready to pay the Jizya, then free them”. Whereas Jizya itself is diverting towards materialism.

Why does Islam give such a permission that they remain on their false religion?

Answer: From the things of pride for Islam is that it doesn't force anyone to accept this religion without having liking and half-heartedness, As Qur’an says:

There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error;1

The philosophy of this great verse is also clear. As Islam has invited towards itself through logic and proof and it is war against foolish and superstitious things, its only weapon is to explain the truth and express in a general way. Why after having such a strong weapon, which can attract an open mind and logical people, it should force the people?

Quote

Basically for real faith some special things are required if a person doesn't acquire them through perception and far sightedness, then it is difficult for them give it a place in the heart and if forcibly faith is thrust upon them. So it is limited to the tongue and would not have taken them with their heart and whenever factors of enforcement are not there, a person may revert to his earlier condition.

Such type of faith is not profitable to Islam.

 

Quote

The purpose of Jihad in Islam defense from enemies is itself a topic, which should be discussed separately, whereas Jizya was a fixed tax was paid by the People of the Book (Ahlul Kitab ) every year to the government

 

Quote

It was necessary for those who had not accepted Islam, to take a justified tax from them and spend it on their life and safety of their wealth. To protect the life and wealth of people the Islamic government was forced to keep the army on strategic points, which accrued huge expenses. To meet this expense the only way was to acquire money from the people and spend it for their own welfare. Especially when there was war against the enemies, the non-Muslims did not send their men.

 

 

Quote

We have many historical facts, from which we come to know that this tax, which is generally less, was not to put pressure on the non-Muslims, but its purpose was to give peace and for safety measures. We give some examples for it:

 

Quote

(3) The quantity of Jizya applied by the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).a.) for the Christians of Najran clarify our stand, because it was decided that they will give yearly three thousand Hilla (the price of each Hilla was forty dirhams), to be paid in two installments. Two thousand Hilla in the month of Safar and one thousand Hilla in the month of Rajab. In the same way the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).a.) had a treaty with the people of Izrah on the condition that they will pay one hundred Dinars every year.

For the safety of the life, wealth and property of the enemies, this tax was nothing for them.

 

https://www.al-islam.org/philosophy-islamic-laws-naser-makarem-shirazi-jafar-subhani/question-18-what-purpose-jizya

 

 

[Northwest]

9 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

@Ibn-e-Muhammad, @Dubilexboth rightwing and leftwing belong to the same bird (i.e. capitalist vulture)—Muslims agree and disagree partially with both parties but both camps have gone to extremes and Islam commands us to remind them of moderation and balance 

@Eddie Mecca

See below:

7 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Hezbollah, Houthis etc. are trying to do precisely that but they're encountering a tremendous amount of difficulty due to the meddlesome nature of Western hegemony and American foreign policy—

Yet Venezuela, Cuba, and Bolivia, being social-democratic, democratic-socialist, and/or Marxist in orientation, propound very different economic models from that of Islam. They regard certain services as public goods rather than private commodities, thereby treating individual needs as communal affairs. As far as I am aware, Islam heavily emphasises private enterprise at the expense of public ownership and/or provision. Under this model healthcare, housing, and education might be regarded as the preserve of the private rather than public sector. Also, socialistic and/or socially liberal societies sometimes impose quotas based on race or ethnicity rather than merit, as is done in higher education in the U.S., whereas Iran does not do so to nearly the same degree.

Regarding private enterprise, see the following by @AmirioTheMuzzy:

So at least some Muslims on this site seem to think that the American and/or Swiss economic model is more compatible with Islam than that of countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, or even those of Scandinavia (e.g., Sweden). Such a model is obviously not the “golden mean” of two poles in the realm of economics. Since the early 1990s, Iran has also privatised and/or outsourced a fair proportion of its own economy, which is now integrated with that of the global marketplace, or at least more so than it was during the 1980s. If one prefers a market-based model, however, then the impartiality of the market would clash with the need for racial and/or ethnic preferences. The market does not care about one’s “victimhood” or “white privilege.” It only cares about merit.

7 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

countries, movements and individuals can do both you know—work to better themselves while simultaneously calling out imperialist practices/policies and white racism etc.—we can chew gum and walk at the same time—and it's actually an Islamic injunction—a man asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), “What is the best form of jihad?” and the Prophet replied, “A word of truth in front of a tyrannical ruler.”

I don’t disagree here. The problem is that some groups, in addition to focussing on actual imperialism and racism, also exaggerate, invent, or contrive to gain certain advantages. My point is that one should always focus strictly on the Truth, even in opposing the Establishment, and the Truth is sufficiently ugly as to negate the advantages of fabricating additional ugliness.

7 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Because they're either closet racists or overtly racist—Lol—the entire American Experiment was based on immigration from European and non-European countries—legislation encouraged immigration from any country during the 1900's when the US required industrial development and families could earn a sustainable/living wage (hence strengthening the economy and infrastructure)—US "multinational" companies then decided to export all manufacturing jobs abroad and immigrants fell into two extreme ends of an earnings/income potential—now they still require immigration but they're highly selective about it (e.g. surgeons, engineers from MENA and SE Asia)

As far as immigration to the U.S. is concerned, your assertion(s) may not be entirely historically accurate. Historically the vast majority of immigrants to the U.S. were of European extraction and had been conditioned by law almost from the very inception of the U.S. as a nation-state. Since the 1880s the laws were tightened to exclude many Europeans of Mediterranean, Slavic, and/or Jewish extraction.

1790: Naturalisation Act limits immigration to “free white persons of good standing”

1870: Naturalisation Act formally makes black Africans eligible for U.S. citizenship

1882: Chinese Exclusion Act bans all Chinese immigration to the United States

1921: Emergency Quota Act limits emigration from Southeastern Europe to the U.S.

1924: Immigration Act confirms and solidifies/tightens the Emergency Quota Act

• Indian Citizenship Act extends “blanket citizenship” to Indigenous Americans

1950s–present: immigration laws liberalised to cover most/all of the world

7 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Most immigrants are good people who are simply trying to better themselves

Of course most migrants do not engage in criminal activities, but a sizeable minority do. Honest Muslims such as @Mahdavist , @Abu Nur , @Gaius I. Caesar and @Ali_Hussain have acknowledged the reality of such phenomena as gang-related activity and homegrown terrorism:

Are you implying that Wahhabi–Salafi terrorism is somehow deemed acceptable, so long as it targets non-Muslim populations instead of Muslim? To be fair, I do not think you are doing so, and I certainly hope not.

7 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

I think a lot of people use the term "racism" as a sort of loose synonym for prejudice, discrimination etc.—also, it's usually whites who dictate the conversation and confuse terminology and persons of color (POC) simply accept the confused definitions and respond in kind—hence Arabs and Muslims and Middle Easterners and Asiatic brown people are seen as the exotic, dangerous, temperamental and uncivilized "other" and lumped together in one broad category.  

Most of the media, finance, and higher “education” in the West is actually under the control of Ashkenazi (European) Jewry, not “whites.” The Ashkenazi elite tends to be highly assimilated and secularised in outlook, hence its support for secular-nationalist projects such as Zionism as well as globalist ones. These Ashkenazi elites essentially created modern secular ideologies such as nationalism, socialism, and liberalism, to not mention postmodernist currents such as feminism, “gender” ideology, racial politics, LBGTQ+I, and so on. Ashkenazi elites also dominate Israel and discriminate against non-Ashkenazi Jews. By contrast, the Sephardi Jews are much more traditional in outlook, are often anti-Zionist, and share common cause with traditional Muslim and Christian communities in the MENA.

5 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

My friend, denial ain't merely a river in Egypt—look at this website and you'll see Muslims criticizing and critiquing other Muslims and condemning deplorable aspects of Islamic history—this is healthy and a good practice—do whites do this sort of rigorous inward reflection on regular basis?—have whites ever critically examined their own cultural heritage, history, worldview etc. with a fearless introspection?—perhaps an isolated thinker here or there—more times than not such conversations are swept underneath the rug—Caucasians insist on an echo chamber and when the occasional dissenter puts forth an unpopular opinion he (she) is quickly denounced as "self-hating" and browbeaten into compliance/conformity

Individuals such as Trump, forces such as the alt-right, and media such as FOX News do not reflect the overwhelmingly globalist orientation of the Western power-structure. Western nativism has been heavily ostracised since World War II and particularly since the 1960s. Westerners have been made by the Establishment to feel guilty for both real and imagined historical sins. Populist policies that eschew open borders and identity politics have been condemned by the Council on Foreign Relations and other Establishment-linked organs. Major corporations, academia, and the media have heavily promoted recent movements such as Black Lives Matter. Companies that do not embrace “anti-racism” are being shamed and shunned. The World Economic Forum endorses Black Lives Matter and its attendant aims. You are also familiar with the Western taboo on Holocaust revisionism and other arenas that might negatively impinge on Zionism.

5 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

whites have Nerfed the world (i.e. institutions, academia, entertainment etc.) in order to suppress interruptions in familiar/comfortable cognitive constructs—any reputable psychologist will tell you that before one can tackle any problem, he (she) has to (first) recognize that a particular problem exists—progress can only be made with a deep self-examination, identification, acknowledgement, acceptance etc.—only then can potential remedies can be offered/suggested as real solutions.  

I am suspicious of psychoanalysis because it has been used and abused by the globalists to push a harmful agenda.

[Gaius I. Caesar]

21 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Most immigrants are good people who are simply trying to better themselves

But it is always the small minority of radical Wahhabbis/Salafis or the frustrated young man who lashes out and radicalizes that ultimately worsen life for those just trying to better themselves.  I still stand by what I said two years ago, home-grown terrorism and getting involved in criminal activity are conscious decisions that affect everyone when the media gets a hold of these "Muslims". And for the record they are selfish decisions that get no sympathy from me. 

[Northwest]

8 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

But it is always the small minority of radical Wahhabbis/Salafis or the frustrated young man who lashes out and radicalizes that ultimately worsen life for those just trying to better themselves.  I still stand by what I said two years ago, home-grown terrorism and getting involved in criminal activity are conscious decisions that affect everyone when the media gets a hold of these "Muslims". And for the record they are selfish decisions that get no sympathy from me. 

@Eddie Mecca

I also wish to clarify that there is a difference between justified, targeted retaliation and indiscriminate, collective punishment. Imam Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie was narrowly targeted and did not affect the millions of individuals who had nothing to do with the actions of a minority such as that of Rushdie and his ilk. On the other hand, Wahhabi–Salafi terrorist attacks in response to “blasphemy” all too often target people who had nothing to do with the initial offence itself. So I am not condemning Muslims (or others) who respond, even violently, to specific individuals’ provocative actions, but I do condemn those who also target an entire society over the actions of a few anti-religious provocateurs.

[Dubilex]

On 8/6/2022 at 7:31 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

My friend, denial ain't merely a river in Egypt—look at this website and you'll see Muslims criticizing and critiquing other Muslims and condemning deplorable aspects of Islamic history—this is healthy and a good practice—do whites do this sort of rigorous inward reflection on regular basis?—have whites ever critically examined their own cultural heritage, history, worldview etc. with a fearless introspection?—perhaps an isolated thinker here or there—more times than not such conversations are swept underneath the rug—Caucasians insist on an echo chamber and when the occasional dissenter puts forth an unpopular opinion he (she) is quickly denounced as "self-hating" and browbeaten into compliance/conformity—whites have Nerfed the world (i.e. institutions, academia, entertainment etc.) in order to suppress interruptions in familiar/comfortable cognitive constructs—any reputable psychologist will tell you that before one can tackle any problem, he (she) has to (first) recognize that a particular problem exists—progress can only be made with a deep self-examination, identification, acknowledgement, acceptance etc.—only then can potential remedies can be offered/suggested as real solutions.  

 

It's rather the reverse. Not that I'm pro-west by any means, but the the western world has indeed critically discussed their colonial past. Numerous western commentators talk critically about the legacy of western colonialism.

It's rather today's muslims who refuse to critically discuss the problems and deficiencies we have. That is by no means minimizing the role of zionism in all of this. But there are muslims out there who glorifies the Ottoman empire, even though the Ottoman empire was incredibly corrupt and oppressive. They have adopted this view that if it weren't for evil white men, the islamic world would a golden age civilization. A very black and white view of the world.

Just saying that today's ummah is too gullible and easily manipulated by the zionists. If we can't rationally discuss our own faults, we will always be under the boot of zionists

Edited August 7, 2022 by Dubilex

[SoRoUsH]

I love how pro-Peterson people are showing their true colours in this thread. Not surprising at all! 

[Traveller_]

On 8/5/2022 at 2:24 PM, Northwest said:

@Traveller_

There is something deeply incongruous about a man who praises the value of tradition yet himself does not seem to be very traditional, at least in a religiously observant sense. After all, Zionism did not originate among religious Jews, but among secularist or even apostate Jews, as well as evangelical “Christians.” Orthodox Judaism has traditionally been stridently opposed to Zionism, yet today most “Jewish” organisations support either Zionist nationalism or globalist atheism, neither of which is religious is outlook. Peterson should honestly learn about Judaism’s traditional opposition to Zionism, as well as distinguish between orthodox Shia/Sunni Muslims and Wahhabi–Salafi terrorists.

 

I think he's trying to walk on eggshells for the sake of his audience; he famously refused to answer whether he actually believed in god (could be because he genuinely believe in his argument about believing in god) 

He's probably conflicted because of his academic background and knowledge. 

[Gaius I. Caesar]

On 8/7/2022 at 7:27 AM, Dubilex said:

It's rather today's muslims who refuse to critically discuss the problems and deficiencies we have. That is by no means minimizing the role of zionism in all of this. But there are muslims out there who glorifies the Ottoman empire, even though the Ottoman empire was incredibly corrupt and oppressive.

The trans-Sahara trade was harsher and older than the trans-Atlantic slave in many aspects. It wasn't just capturing African people and sending them to plantations and do labor work. It was a system that wiped out male generations by making them eunuchs for the royal harems, while their Arab and Turk masters took their women as concubines but yet, I have never seen anyone discuss this topic on SC; It is much easier and simpler for people like Eddie Mecca to say whites are inherently racist because they are entitled and lack introspection.

Interesting article on the topic: https://www.fairplanet.org/dossier/beyond-slavery/forgotten-slavery-the-arab-muslim-slave-trade/

[Aloysius Pendergast]

8 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

The trans-Sahara trade was harsher and older than the trans-Atlantic slave in many aspects. It wasn't just capturing African people and sending them to plantations and do labor work. It was a system that wiped out male generations by making them eunuchs for the royal harems, while their Arab and Turk masters took their women as concubines but yet, I have never seen anyone discuss this topic on SC; It is much easier and simpler for people like Eddie Mecca to say whites are inherently racist because they are entitled and lack introspection.

Interesting article on the topic: https://www.fairplanet.org/dossier/beyond-slavery/forgotten-slavery-the-arab-muslim-slave-trade/

Oh yes, absolute clear double standard when we talk about Western History and Islamic history.

Although, to be fair, Shias are less inclined to glorify Islamic history as roses and grapes for obvious reasons. 

That aside, I think it's high time we stop reactionarily demonizing history that's Western and glorifying everything within an Islamic tint. It's a sign of maturity of an individual, community, group, or nation to be able to look inward and discuss and acknowledge flaws and misdeeds. We're not at that level of maturity yet.

[Aloysius Pendergast]

On 8/5/2022 at 2:58 PM, Northwest said:

@Aloysius Pendergast

Americans do tend to regard foreigners as less-than-human “Others,” but so do people of every culture and society, to an extent. If one regards his enemies as subhuman, as being devoid of any redeeming aspect or quality, then he is liable to respond as harshly as possible to any perceived transgression against his countrymen, as well as to regard his race as representing a “superior” civilisation, granted by Providence the “right” to conquest, including the expropriation of foreign nations and the appropriation of scarce resources. Exploitation is thus part of the “will to power,” to dominance.

This is true. Dehumanization of the other isn't exclusive to any specific group or nation. History proves as such. Anyway, not to deviate from my point, which simply was to be cautious about those we assume as allies simply because there's alignment in what we detest and loate.

 

On 8/5/2022 at 2:58 PM, Northwest said:

 

America was founded on colonisation and discrimination. But the Americans, like the early Muslims, were conquering a pagan society, in this case that of the Indians, and in both Christianity and Islam pagans are not allowed religious liberty, instead being liable to forced conversion after a certain period of “grace.” Part of the problem also lies in the fact that some Muslims who do not understand their own religion criticise American Christians for treating the pagan Indians harshly—as though Muslims would have acted substantially differently. People view the past through modern eyes.

This is an interesting point. The concept of "no compulsion in religion" is quite prominent within Islam, yet it is fair to argue that did not apply to the pagan arabs of Mecca.

At the same time, one can easily argue that it was the belligerence and scheming of the pagan arabs of mecca that led to them being cast for elimination(ideologically speaking) vs their belief. As Juan Cole writes in his recent book "Muhammad," the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) engaged in allegiances with all sorts of groups in Medina, including Jews, Christians and yes even Pagans. So the idea of Islam being totally unforgiving for an existence of paganism in some form under Islamic rule is not true.

In subsequent generations, there's plenty evidence of co-existence with Hindus, Buddhists and so forth. Religions that can rightfully be considered pagan, at least exoterically.

Christian history, aside from some exceptions, had a very "take Christianity like a battering ram" and wipe out what was before way of doing things. Islam has been a mixed bag in that respect, with periods of intolerance and plenty of periods with co-existence and tolerance of other faiths, including Pagans.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here. And God knows best.

 

On 8/5/2022 at 2:58 PM, Northwest said:

 

It is also interesting that the Western elites, who are notoriously pro-Zionist and/or pro-globalist, are also largely supportive of open borders. On this matter the demands of the Muslim migrants curiously coincide with those of their (ultimate) enemies. Ironically, many of these migrants claim that the West is “racist,” yet it is the West, especially Europe, that accepted and continues to accept millions of migrants, many of whom were and are unassimilable, e.g., drug traffickers and Wahhabi–Salafi terrorists. These very elements were also largely despised and rejected by traditional Muslim societies, but accepted and even promoted by the West, in order to divide and rule at home and abroad.

I think the concept of open borders is much more of a problem in Europe vs here in the U.S. Here, Muslim immigrants have thrived, whereas in Europe it seems our rep is a mixed bag.

So it varies, but yes I agree, and I said earlier, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a self-preservation instinct and to retain one's culture, moral values and community fabric. European countries tend to be a bit more insular, so it's expected that the push back on immigration there is more prominent vs in the U.S.

On 8/5/2022 at 2:58 PM, Northwest said:

The problem with open borders is that they are a double-edged sword. The West wants to weaken Muslim societies such as Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan by siphoning off native elites and their talents. In doing so the West undermines the ability of these societies to resist subjugation. Many Muslims criticised Trump’s ban on the admission of Syrians, Iranians, and Yemenis to the U.S., yet arguably such a ban would have been mutually beneficial for both sides. Also, Islam and traditional Muslim culture heavily frown on “Muslims” who flee to their enemies’ lands rather than stay, fight, and contribute to their own native societies’ struggle(s) against foreign imperialism. So Muslims should praise the ban.

Yes, but that's the individual's choice. Ultimately, your first focus is personal success and the success of your family and loved ones. If the country you are in, isn't providing you what you need to get there, then fair play to find greener pastures.

Can't expect everyone to be fiercely nationalist. Most just want to create a good life for them and their families

 

On 8/5/2022 at 2:58 PM, Northwest said:

As my profile indicates, I am not a Muslim, but I am critical of globalism, including imperialism, and find that forces such as open borders are harmful both to Muslim and non-Muslim societies. As I noted above, I think that Muslims’ negative response to Trump was based in part on misconceived notions. Trump’s ban on emigration from “terrorist-sponsoring”™ states arguably would have forced Iranians, Syrians, Yemenis, and so on to stay and assist their own communities rather than seek lucrative opportunities in the U.S., thereby helping their own nations survive Western incursion(s).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[Gaius I. Caesar]

@Aloysius Pendergast @Dubilex @Northwest @Ashvazdanghe @Eddie Mecca

Here's a potentially controversial thought: Suppose I did reflect on the dark history of North America on a regular basis, will it undo the 400 year-old damage already done, will it bring the numerous Native American tribes slaughtered and sickened by the diseases and weapons of white man? Will it liberate black people from systematic racism from law enforcement? Am I responsible for any  ancestral actions? No. I don't believe in the idea of Original Sin or sins of the father.  As brother Dubliex said, there are many commentators critically discussing slavery and African-American history, it's not like it is swept under the rug, it is taught and talked about in school but ultimately nobody should blame a single group of people for the ills of society, say certain people are naturally bad or blame them for their own short-comings. 

[AmirioTheMuzzy]

On 8/6/2022 at 4:59 AM, Northwest said:

So at least some Muslims on this site seem to think that the American and/or Swiss economic model is more compatible with Islam than that of countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, or even those of Scandinavia (e.g., Sweden).

Brother I wrote that when I was 18. I had no clue what I was talking about. Please disregard it.

Edited August 8, 2022 by AmirioTheMuzzy

[Eddie Mecca]

Lively and spirited discussion—I'll response when I find some spare time in'sha Allah.

[Ashvazdanghe]

10 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

The trans-Sahara trade was harsher and older than the trans-Atlantic slave in many aspects. It wasn't just capturing African people and sending them to plantations and do labor work. It was a system that wiped out male generations by making them eunuchs for the royal harems, while their Arab and Turk masters took their women as concubines but yet, I have never seen anyone discuss this topic on SC; It is much easier and simpler for people like Eddie Mecca to say whites are inherently racist because they are entitled and lack introspection.

Interesting article on the topic: https://www.fairplanet.org/dossier/beyond-slavery/forgotten-slavery-the-arab-muslim-slave-trade/

Salam , This article is alittle bit a biased article just for blaming Arabs & Muslims about slavery which it has not mentined that slavey has been banned due to financial war between European Jews (Zionists) & Arab slave trade merchants as rivals in slave trading not due o humanity or caring about Africans which due industrialization of European countries so then slave trade has not been benefical for European Jews (Zionists) but  on opposite it still has been benficial for Arab  slave trade so therefore they have banned it globally for cutting  hand of Arabs merchants from that market not due human values also it's wrong about Iran by putting it in same basket of other countries nevertheless  slavery & making eunuchs has been common in Iran & rest of countries  for elite people anyway it's rhetoric about making African slave labor into eunuchs is totally wrong because eunuchs only have been educated  just for serving in Harem which it has  been needed fair education & treatment since childhood which process of making eunuchs & providing concubins has been totally in hands of Jews even in muslim countries which it has been totally a separate branch from slave trade for labor work which it has been under control of Arab merchants which majority of african descendants in Iran & rest of muslim of countries are descendants of African labor slaves  although it has been very rare in Iran which it has limited to southern ports & few eastern provinces of Iran which even some shia migrants from Shiraz province & rest of faamous ports of persian gulf  have migrated to Zanzibar which they have married with free african women in Zanzibar  which their presence there has lead to originating of Shirazi people & inventing of swahili language although later colonizers have tried to relate it to influence of Sunnis due to destroying of documents of presence of Shias in Zanzibar  & their agenda about demonozing Arab merchants as their rivals in slavery for providing labor slaves for sugar cane slavery later slvery in cotton fields of America which both of thm totally have been under dominance of zionist Jews.

https://unitedrepublicoftanzania.com/the-people-of-tanzania/daily-life-in-tanzania-and-social-customs/major-tanzania-ethnic-groups/how-many-tanzania-tribes-biggest/shirazi-people-history-religion-language-cult-people-zanzibar-comoros/

10 hours ago, Aloysius Pendergast said:

Oh yes, absolute clear double standard when we talk about Western History and Islamic history.

Although, to be fair, Shias are less inclined to glorify Islamic history as roses and grapes for obvious reasons. 

That aside, I think it's high time we stop reactionarily demonizing history that's Western and glorifying everything within an Islamic tint. It's a sign of maturity of an individual, community, group, or nation to be able to look inward and discuss and acknowledge flaws and misdeeds. We're not at that level of maturity yet.

You have a good point also for adendum shias maybe glorify scientific & medical achievments but on the on the other hand we don't glorify any of usurpers & tyrants & anti shia dynasties also mothers of shia Imams from Imam Kazim (عليه السلام) have been from slaves which in similar fashion mother of Imam Ali Zayn al-Abidin(عليه السلام)  has been a prisoner of war which has been saved from slavery by Amir almumini Imam Ali (عليه السلام) 

8 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

@Aloysius Pendergast @Dubilex @Northwest @Ashvazdanghe @Eddie Mecca

Here's a potentially controversial thought: Suppose I did reflect on the dark history of North America on a regular basis, will it undo the 400 year-old damage already done, will it bring the numerous Native American tribes slaughtered and sickened by the diseases and weapons of white man? Will it liberate black people from systematic racism from law enforcement? Am I responsible for any  ancestral actions? No. I don't believe in the idea of Original Sin or sins of the father.  As brother Dubliex said, there are many commentators critically discussing slavery and African-American history, it's not like it is swept under the rug, it is taught and talked about in school but ultimately nobody should blame a single group of people for the ills of society, say certain people are naturally bad or blame them for their own short-comings. 

My post has been a response to @Northwest post about generalizing Arab traditions as Islamic rulings  which Arabic traditions have been introduced by cursed ummayids & Abbassids as Islamic rulings , which I totally agree with your post  although these issues  have been taught & talked in school  anyway none of these issues have ended yet which all of them just have promoted to another level with a heavy face/off (face-off) by blaming old fashioned slavery  & racism which surly you are not responsible for it  which still now modern slavery & racism are still under totall dominace of zionists likewise AIPAC & rest of zionist lobbies  which  hide themselves behind white men between white society whether in Europe & america or between Arab elites likewise KSA & UAE.

[Eddie Mecca]

On 8/8/2022 at 3:07 PM, Gaius I. Caesar said:

The trans-Sahara trade was harsher

No it wasn't—this is mainly a talking point espoused by Zionists, Evangelical Christians, right-wingers, some extreme Afro-centrists and people with an anti-Muslim agenda—in both theory and application, it was much more humane—the trans-Saharan slave trade wasn't based on a notion of caste supremacy per se—Muslims enslaved black Africans and white Europeans (Slavs, Mediterranean Europeans, Northwestern Europeans etc.) and Central Asians in proportionate numbers—Muslims (often) abused injunctions of Islamic law and sometimes even wholly circumvented them in order to profiteer—this is unfortunate and an indelible blight on our history—notwithstanding, Muslims still saw slaves as human beings bestowed with inalienable rights—a slave could attain a high-ranking position in society (see absurd paradox of elite slavery in Islam / e.g. Mamluks, Ottoman Janissaries etc.)—a slave could take his (her) master to court and complain about violated rights—for major offenses, slaves received half the penalty of freemen in Islamic courts of law— in contrast, whites considered blacks subhuman (e.g. Three-Fifths Clause) and were often killed for leisure or sport.  

On 8/8/2022 at 3:07 PM, Gaius I. Caesar said:

and older

Yeah, it's older (started in the 7th century) and it lasted longer (Mauritania was the last Muslim country to abrogate slavery in 1981) than Anglo-Saxon slavery

On 8/8/2022 at 3:07 PM, Gaius I. Caesar said:

It is much easier and simpler for people like Eddie Mecca to say whites are inherently racist because they are entitled and lack introspection.

Do I believe worldviews can become ingrained in societies and eventually become second nature? I definitely do—your denial and cleaver defection is an attestation to this fact

On 8/8/2022 at 3:07 PM, Gaius I. Caesar said:

I have never seen anyone discuss this topic on SC

I was thinking about posting a topic related to the Trans-Saharan slave trade a few weeks ago actually—you beat me to the punch—congratulations!—there are no sacred cows here—no subject, no idea, no institution is off-limits—I discuss anything and everything 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

@Gaius I. CaesarImam Dawud Walid 'Message to Muslim Critics of Arab Slave Trade' 10 minutes 

 

[Eddie Mecca]

@Gaius I. CaesarBlack Man Schools Arab Muslim and Extreme Afrocentric Girl About Berbers, Arabs Being Indigenous To North Africa (approximately 25 minutes) Also, incremental distinction between the brown-skinned Arabian and the black-skinned African is elusive and contestable as this brother points out—historical, geographical, cultural, linguistical etc.  connection between S.W. Asia and N.E. Africa—basically the Red Sea divides the two continents from being one—line becomes blurred the closer one looks

 

 

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 8/9/2022 at 12:37 AM, Gaius I. Caesar said:

The trans-Sahara trade was harsher and older than the trans-Atlantic slave in many aspects. It wasn't just capturing African people and sending them to plantations and do labor work. It was a system that wiped out male generations by making them eunuchs for the royal harems, while their Arab and Turk masters took their women as concubines but yet, I have never seen anyone discuss this topic on SC; It is much easier and simpler for people like Eddie Mecca to say whites are inherently racist because they are entitled and lack introspection.

Interesting article on the topic: https://www.fairplanet.org/dossier/beyond-slavery/forgotten-slavery-the-arab-muslim-slave-trade/

That's an incorrect assessment on many counts. First of all we need to clarify what methodology we are using to qualitatively/quantitavely pronounce Islamic slavery as 'harsher'. If the methodology is to go by historical comparison of their respective social positions,then the claim holds no water.Only a small subsection of the slaves meant to be harem guards were made into eunuchs, while the vast majority founded local self-sustaining communities. There are also many factual inaccuracies involved. The article cited above doesn't take into account the fact that a large number of Turks and Persians themselves were traditionally military or domestic slaves (consider the Ibn Bagha -Turkic and Barmakid-Persian clans under the Abbasids), so by mutilating the whole picture by separating the Hamito-Semitic Muslim slaves from other traditionally 'servile' ethnic groups (who they claim were 'master' races, which they were not) they are being dishonest. 

And if we really want to compare the two pictures, then we must note that the Afro-Muslim slaves had better legal protection and clearly defined rights (income, resting hours, maintenance, manumission, even inheritance under special circumstances) which were judicially enforceable, as did the Turko-Iranian slaves, which the New World black slaves did not. They ate, wore and lived under the same roofs as their masters while the New World slaves were treated worse than chattel (Ref: Jonathan Brown,Islam and Slavery) . Legislation such as the Jim Crow laws, and the practice of Apartheid in European colonies in Africa and the New World persisted right into the twentieth century. Nothing even remotely similar has ever existed in the Muslim world, early or modern. 

They also had greater success in social mobility and were readily admitted into the ruling class. One only needs to look at the sheer number of Black African and Turko-Iranian dynasties that began to dot the map of the islamicate world by the 3rd Century AH itself- the Tunnids, the Showa Sultans, the Sultans of Ghana, the Sultans of Dawaro, the Gaoid kings, the Kanemids (all Black Muslim dynasties), the Samanids, Barmakids (Persians), Yaminids, Seljuks, Mameluks (Turks), all of these originated as royal retainers of servile origins and made it into the ruling class.  Arguably,there are more ruling dynasties of black African origins than of any other ethnic group in Islamic history. This fact, along with the fact that self-sustaining Black communities survive in today's Muslim communities outside Africa to our own times- the Akhdam in Yemen and the Siddis in the Indian Subcontinent, is sufficient to discredit the lie that the reproductive rights of the communities of servile origins were trampled upon by the early Muslims. In comparison,how long did it take for the African Americans to win suffrage rights, let alone getting to rule over non-blacks? How long did it take for the USA to get a black president, while the early Muslims were accepting black kings and governors of slave origins? If the plantation slaves were allowed to reproduce, it wasn't out of benevolence, but only because it's much cheaper to bear new slaves than to buy new ones. 

From the first generation of Muslims having respected religious heads like Bilal ibn Rabah, Ammar ibn Yasir, his parents Sumayya and Yasir,the female sahabiyya Umm Ayman (Radiallahu anhum ajma'in), to atleast three of our later Imams, al-Jawad, al-Naqi and the Imam of our age, al-Mahdi (alaihim assalam ajma'in), all people of black or partially black servile origins, the early Muslims were accepting black ex-slaves or their children born of Arab fathers as their religious heads. What was the fate of mixed-race children born of black/colored slave mothers under the Latin Southern/Central American 'casta' scheme and the racial pyramid of Anglo-Saxon North America? A black/colored Pope or Archbishop is an unthinkable reality even today.

The Umm Walad (the female slave who bears her master a child) has the status of a permanent wife and her child is legitimate and inherits from his father under classical Islamic law, and this wasn't mere legal fiction because we see many of them rise to become Regent-Queens in Islamicate polities; can the same be claimed for the slave concubines and their offspring in the supposedly 'Enlightened', 'Modern', 'Republican' countries of the New World? 

Last but not the least, any critique of the region's colonial past in the West is seldom a part of mainstream discourse, and is largely confined to the ivory towers of the academia. The Germans are one possible exception. I have seen Britain's school textbooks myself, especially the history textbooks. Not a hint of the country's sickening imperialist past. Similarly a vast majority of the Americans don't know what their domestic and foreign policies have done or is doing. The erasure of inconvenient truths is systemic. 

Make no mistake. I am not even remotely arguing for absurdities like 'whites are inherently racist' Or other such nonsense. I am a revert myself and have no clannish,tribal or ethnic sympathies myself. I have no love lost for reverse-racism or the revanchist logic that the children shall bear the burden of what their forefathers did. All the same, this shouldn't lead to denialist knee-jerk responses whose tenor is 'well if the Europeans/Americans did it, so did the others'. No. The others did not do the same. This is ahistorical. Judge the fallacy of equating the two experiences from this fact alone- non-Arab Muslims continue to survive and thrive in the regions they were indigenous to; they have largely preserved their original languages and cultures. All they have done is to embrace a new religion and mould it according to their regional needs. Can the same be said about the Native Americans and black Africans in the former Euro-American colonies? Let alone the fact that they have lost their original language and culture by far (most of them speak Portuguese or Spanish in Latin America, English in North America, or the language of their European colonizer country in Africa), large swathes of their populations don't even exist today. They did not survive the colonialist onslaught. How can we even draw an analogy between the two experiences? 

Edited August 10, 2022 by AbdusSibtayn

[AbdusSibtayn]

By the way, I just saw  Michaela Peterson's (Jordan Peterson's daughter) video on Islam after her recent 'conversion' to Christianity. She's laughing at the Quran this time and parroting the same Boogeymen like 'wife-beating', 'barbaric', 'backward' which the neocon and alt-right anti-Muslim pundits always do. Heh. 

This family of pathological pseudo-intellectual quacks should come out in the open and make Muslim-baiting their family business. After her father's failed attempt at posing as a public intellectual, it's her attempt at keeping the hearth heated by keeping their far-right conservative Christian audience hooked. No quackish posseurism this time. No pretense at being polished or intellectual. Just your regular Muslim- baiting, the kind you'd expect from Fox News, Bill Maher or Tucker Carlson. 

Waiting to see her progressively WASP tradwife and e-Karen avatars too. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by AbdusSibtayn

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 8/9/2022 at 2:42 AM, Gaius I. Caesar said:

@Aloysius Pendergast @Dubilex @Northwest @Ashvazdanghe @Eddie Mecca

Here's a potentially controversial thought: Suppose I did reflect on the dark history of North America on a regular basis, will it undo the 400 year-old damage already done, will it bring the numerous Native American tribes slaughtered and sickened by the diseases and weapons of white man? Will it liberate black people from systematic racism from law enforcement? Am I responsible for any  ancestral actions? No. I don't believe in the idea of Original Sin or sins of the father.  As brother Dubliex said, there are many commentators critically discussing slavery and African-American history, it's not like it is swept under the rug, it is taught and talked about in school but ultimately nobody should blame a single group of people for the ills of society, say certain people are naturally bad or blame them for their own short-comings. 

Agreed. 

[Haji 2003]

5 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

No it wasn't—this is mainly a talking point espoused by Zionists, Evangelical Christians, right-wingers, some extreme Afro-centrists and people with an anti-Muslim agenda—in both theory and application, it was much more humane

Precisely, the Atlantic slavery apologists / and whatabouterists also conveniently ignore the fact that the United States has a racial problem of a scale not seen anywhere else.

For some reason they can't explain, but which you have, Arab societies were able to assimilate slaves far better than the U.S.

[Son of Placid]

On 8/5/2022 at 11:31 PM, Eddie Mecca said:

denial ain't merely a river in Egypt

I'm going to use that. 

This is an interesting thread. 
You give Americans too much credit thus looking at the wrong Caucasians. 

The US educational system has been "America only" since it was introduced by J.D. Rockefeller. Three "Rs", (reading, riting, and rithmetic), their heroes, their enemies. Rockefeller said he didn't want a nation of thinkers, but workers.
Americans have been psychologically groomed for decades. Decadence under the guise of freedom.
They are a combination of arrogance and ignorance with declining morals since...forever. Half of them don't know where Canada is. Now they question whether a penis is male or female. 

Before the internet it was easy to tell an American to buy a parka before visiting Canada in the summer. I am guilty of telling an American I needed to replace the leather on the dog sled so I could go hunt for supper. All of their history ends with true American heroes. They learn nothing about the rest of the world. 
They believe their sworn enemies are Russians, and the Chinese while everything they own except their guns is made in China. They can't believe the US would ever make a uranium deal with Russia. They believe all Muslims are Wahabi and out to get poor little Israel. They have no idea that US involvement in the Middle East had more to do with oil than virtue. They love what they've been told to love and hate what they've been told to hate. They believe America is the greatest country in the world and know it all the way to their state line, which most have never crossed.
You have to educate them before you can condemn them.
People seem to think governments run their countries, or that democrat or republican matters. Governments are run by the financial institutions of this world. Even then, not all are Caucasians.

JP is a straight talker. If he sounds condescending it's because he said something you didn't like. People don't like being told. That has always been part of any talk he's done. Much like that of the robot Shapiro. Point blank. I'm not even sure how they are invited to do lectures. 
The quest of the cancel culture is to find something to be offended by and use that to miss the point.
It's not only this new shallow woke that follow this philosophy, religion has done it for centuries. It still works.
Over 10,000 "Christian" denominations all created by various "holy" men. Islam is 600 years behind, following the pattern. Check the religious warfare in Europe, 1400s.
Division is evil. History makes it obvious.
He's calling for unity and I've seen more division from it than anything, all between Muslims here.

I see these arguments stemming from two trains of thought.
There are those who believe the true Christians will not grieve, and those that give them the narrow part of the path.  

 

[AbdusSibtayn]

While we are having this conversation, I also announce my public ruju' from my earlier stance on individuals like Daniel Haqiqatjou and Saajid Lipham who are normalizing this toxicity. I will henceforth refrain from sharing, promoting or using in any way their content and thoughts, and urge my fellow brethren-in-iman to do the same. The blood of my brothers takes priority over any kind of intellectual association/inspiration/utility. To the same category belong his 'Sufi' counterparts like G.F. Haddad, the Blogging Theology channel and Asrar Rashid who are pedding al-Ghazali's and Ibn Khaldun's anti-Shi'a bile. War against takfirism involves war against soft-takfirism as well. I will NEVER sell the blood of my brothers for cheap social media thrills.
It's time we began producing and promoting our own organic intellectuals like brother Ayoobi, who runs the Muslim Theist blog, or even non-Twelver intellectuals like Khalil Andani.
#ShiaGenocide

 

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by AbdusSibtayn

[AbdusSibtayn]

Another social-media -made- famous cancerous tumour. These terrorists need to be named and shamed.

#ShiaGenocide

 

[SoRoUsH]

Whether we are talking about the Far Right or the Anti-Shia sentiments the mechanism of radicalization is similar. 

For the same reason that Peterson is dangerous, so are these "Chad" Muslim YouTubers. 

Alt-right pipeline: Individual journeys to extremism online

 

[Raina]

On 7/15/2022 at 2:16 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

Saajid Lipham's commentary and critique of JP's address to Muslims (20 minutes) 

 

Never heard of JP but his resemblance to Obama is astounding... :0 secondly, not sure if anyone can tell but it appears that JP is reading a script if you watch him closely. its uncomfortable to watch.

[Traveller_]

On 8/10/2022 at 10:46 AM, AbdusSibtayn said:

By the way, I just saw  Michaela Peterson's (Jordan Peterson's daughter) video on Islam after her recent 'conversion' to Christianity. She's laughing at the Quran this time and parroting the same Boogeymen like 'wife-beating', 'barbaric', 'backward' which the neocon and alt-right anti-Muslim pundits always do. Heh. 

This family of pathological pseudo-intellectual quacks should come out in the open and make Muslim-baiting their family business. After her father's failed attempt at posing as a public intellectual, it's her attempt at keeping the hearth heated by keeping their far-right conservative Christian audience hooked. No quackish posseurism this time. No pretense at being polished or intellectual. Just your regular Muslim- baiting, the kind you'd expect from Fox News, Bill Maher or Tucker Carlson. 

Waiting to see her progressively WASP tradwife and e-Karen avatars too. 

Michaela Peterson herself has no content to provide, ever since she started her channel she's been only as successful as far she's been able to leech off her father. 

Her channel might as well be just another girl reactions channel

[AbdusSibtayn]

Two more 'intellectuals' to watch out for-
1. So Mr. Paul Williams has outed himself as a staunch proponent of the Ibn Taimiyyah/ibn Baaz version of Ashura, Alhamdulillah.

2. Joseph Lumbard has liked the tweet.

@Abu Nur @Eddie Mecca @313_Waiter this is the pal of Ali Ataei, co-Admin of Blogging Theology channel. Wholeheartedly endorsing the Umayyad narrative on the martyrdom of al-Hussain (عليه السلام). I hope I don't need to introduce people to Farid Bahraini, Hassan Shemrani or Hani aka Tripoli Sunni.
 

Keep your hands on your heart and say, shall we follow/promote/endorse in any form those who spit on the sacrificeof the  Ahlul Bayt (ams)? Whatever happened to al-wala' wal bara' principle?

 

[Abu Nur]

1 hour ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

 

 

1 hour ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Two more 'intellectuals' to watch out for-
1. So Mr. Paul Williams has outed himself as a staunch proponent of the Ibn Taimiyyah/ibn Baaz version of Ashura, Alhamdulillah.

2. Joseph Lumbard has liked the tweet.

@Abu Nur @Eddie Mecca @313_Waiter this is the pal of Ali Ataei, co-Admin of Blogging Theology channel. Wholeheartedly endorsing the Umayyad narrative on the martyrdom of al-Hussain (عليه السلام). I hope I don't need to introduce people to Farid Bahraini, Hassan Shemrani or Hani aka Tripoli Sunni.
 

Keep your hands on your heart and say, shall we follow/promote/endorse in any form those who spit on the sacrificeof the  Ahlul Bayt (ams)? Whatever happened to al-wala' wal bara' principle?

 

These people really don't even care if its a nasibi work, they still will follow it. Anyway I will never share his videos here and nor do I watch them Insah'Allah.

Edited August 21, 2022 by Abu Nur

[Aloysius Pendergast]

I think when someone becomes a Sunni or a Shia, you essentially become "boxed" into the historical narrative peddled by your intellectual and spiritual forefathers.

This is why people like Shiekh Hamza Yusuf will downplay or dismiss the merits of the Ahlul Bayt(عليه السلام), and his counterpart Imam Zaid Shakir will continue to call Muawiyah as (رضي الله عنه). Whether it is intentional or just what they truly believe, the fact is that the nawasib legacy runs deep within the Sunni historical and theological tradition. 

Unfortunately, the nasabi narrative will live on until I imagine the return of the Mahdi(عليه السلام).

We should promote and buy books that expose the nasibi narrative, while shedding light about the truth and mertis of the Ahlul Bayt(عليه السلام).

I've been meaning to get a copy of this book. The price tag is a bit hefty, but looks like an essential read. 

Edited August 21, 2022 by Aloysius Pendergast

[AbdusSibtayn]

7 hours ago, Aloysius Pendergast said:

I think when someone becomes a Sunni or a Shia, you essentially become "boxed" into the historical narrative peddled by your intellectual and spiritual forefathers.

This is why people like Shiekh Hamza Yusuf will downplay or dismiss the merits of the Ahlul Bayt(عليه السلام), and his counterpart Imam Zaid Shakir will continue to call Muawiyah as (رضي الله عنه). Whether it is intentional or just what they truly believe, the fact is that the nawasib legacy runs deep within the Sunni historical and theological tradition. 

Unfortunately, the nasabi narrative will live on until I imagine the return of the Mahdi(عليه السلام).

We should promote and buy books that expose the nasibi narrative, while shedding light about the truth and mertis of the Ahlul Bayt(عليه السلام).

I've been meaning to get a copy of this book. The price tag is a bit hefty, but looks like an essential read. 

That's a wonderful and well-researched work. Ammar Nakshawani had recommended it too in his lecture series the previous Muharram.

Yes it's quite hard on the pocket, but if you can make do with an ebook, then LibGen is your friend.

Although the overall point behind the last many posts was to warn sympathetic Shia audience against some 'Sunni' pop intellectuals. They have these Shia in their thrall because they engage with modernist critiques of Islam, but they are nothing other than crypto-nawasib or nasibism-enablers themselves. Such Shia who harbour soft corners for them should take note of whom they are promoting as the ambassadors of Islam, and how promoting and fawning over such individuals augurs for their faith and principles.
As an authentic hadith of our 8th Imam goes- those 'Shia' who harbour love/firendship/sympathy/tolerance for the enemies of the Ahul Bayt (ams) are worse than those enemies themselves.

[Aloysius Pendergast]

15 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

That's a wonderful and well-researched work. Ammar Nakshawani had recommended it too in his lecture series the previous Muharram.

Yes it's quite hard on the pocket, but if you can make do with an ebook, then LibGen is your friend.

Although the overall point behind the last many posts was to warn sympathetic Shia audience against some 'Sunni' pop intellectuals. They have these Shia in their thrall because they engage with modernist critiques of Islam, but they are nothing other than crypto-nawasib or nasibism-enablers themselves. Such Shia who harbour soft corners for them should take note of whom they are promoting as the ambassadors of Islam, and how promoting and fawning over such individuals augurs for their faith and principles.
As an authentic hadith of our 8th Imam goes- those 'Shia' who harbour love/firendship/sympathy/tolerance for the enemies of the Ahul Bayt (ams) are worse than those enemies themselves.

Agreed. And I think this goes back to your earlier point about creating space for and highlighting Shia thinkers(or emphasizers) that are also in that same space.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Aloysius Pendergast

[Muhammed Ali]

On 8/21/2022 at 6:38 PM, AbdusSibtayn said:

Two more 'intellectuals' to watch out for-
1. So Mr. Paul Williams has outed himself as a staunch proponent of the Ibn Taimiyyah/ibn Baaz version of Ashura, Alhamdulillah.

2. Joseph Lumbard has liked the tweet.

@Abu Nur @Eddie Mecca @313_Waiter this is the pal of Ali Ataei, co-Admin of Blogging Theology channel. Wholeheartedly endorsing the Umayyad narrative on the martyrdom of al-Hussain (عليه السلام). I hope I don't need to introduce people to Farid Bahraini, Hassan Shemrani or Hani aka Tripoli Sunni.
 

Keep your hands on your heart and say, shall we follow/promote/endorse in any form those who spit on the sacrificeof the  Ahlul Bayt (ams)? Whatever happened to al-wala' wal bara' principle?

 

At least Shaykh Yasir Qadhi has been strongly condemning Yazeed. It's evident that his time at Yale opened his mind to some of the weaknesses in his previous beliefs.

 

 

I recently saw a short video by Mufti Menk about Ashura. The ignorance was astounding. He said both sides were duped by a third party into hating and fighting each other. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Muhammed Ali