#rightful caliph

[king-of-men]

There's a certain class of public intellectual - the two examples I have in mind are Bryan Caplan and Freddie deBoer, who otherwise have very little in common - who is genuinely quite smart and articulate, and able to defend their positions against almost everyone they debate with (including other people smart and articulate enough to be serious public intellectuals), and who therefore come across as being Well Up There in the human tiers. And then, every so often, whether from hubris or just sheer bad luck - they'll go up against someone with Serious Brainpower and they will get absolutely fucking smashed. Bryan Caplan tried to critique Huemer's book and came out of it looking a lot like the coyote after his own steamroller has squashed him flat; FdB had the very bad luck to post about EA a few hours before the sage Alexander did, which perhaps made his post come to Scott's attention in a way it otherwise wouldn't, and a day later there was a SlateStarCodex post that took FdB's position apart entirely, thoroughly, and without visible effort.

It's like watching, say, the Romanians in WWII going up against late-war Russians: These armies are visibly roughly the same thing, they both have tanks and machine guns and a reasonably up-to-date officer corps, it's not like bolt-action rifles against spears and shields. (That would be a normie trying to argue with the likes of Caplan.) And nonetheless one of these armies is about to cease to exist as a serious military organisation.

And nonetheless both bloggers are multiple tiers removed from the average human! I will give Caplan the win against everyone he's ever debated except Huemer and Alexander; and of course most of those people are still people literate enough to actually come to his attention, far beyond any possible effort of a normie Reddit poster; and even Reddit posters (in politics discussions, that is) are (generally) at least capable of reading a few hundred words and posting some moderately grammatical sentences in tangentially-relevant response, putting them easily in the top 50% of humans.

I get kind of used to reading Scott Alexander (quite aside from anything else, he just posts a lot!) and that makes it easy to forget just how much of a mutant superman he really is. And then you watch fairly heavyweight writers like FdB get casually flattened, and you go "Oh, right... born under a red sun."

[tenth-sentence]

This mirrors Islamist attempts to avoid detection through trigger words that feature on jihadist watch lists such as 'Khilafah' (caliphate), 'Kufr' (unbeliever) and 'Dar al-Harb' (the house of war).

"Going Dark: The Secret Social Lives of Extremists" - Julia Ebner

[alwida10]

Apparently, the modern-day-Nazi-party had a secret meeting where they discussed plans to deport immigrated people. Not immigrants. German citizens, who are descendants of immigrants. Apparently it resembles the plan the Nazis had last time.

Yes, it’s that party that keeps getting more and more votes, especially in the eastern parts, including Berlin (up to 32%).

This sucks. So. Much.

[theythemitalian]

rip this mf Abdülmecid II but if it were me the ottoman empire wouldn't have gone anywhere

[georgescitadel]

George R.R. Martin on power and Varys' riddle

Interviewer: I think one of the things that is so involving about the story is that the people who start out with power might be quite limited in some ways and lose it while the people that are allegedly powerless with the right kind of cunning and guile and smarts and heart can find a way out of situations that seem hopeless. Did you intend to examine this idea of power and hierarchy and how these things are not as fixed as people think that they are?

George: Definitely! The whole subject of power is fascinating to me! How does power work? What’s it based on? In Varys’ riddle - which I was very glad they included (in the show), I think it’s one of the most important parts of the book – he asks Tyrion who has the real power in that situation. The rich man, the priest and the king are each telling the sellsword to kill the other people… It’s actually the sellsword who has the power since he's the one who has a sword in his hand. He has the power of life and death over the other three, but he’s going to obey one of the other three because of some allusion of power… When I see that scene played out in my mind’s eye, these are three old fat guys and none of them can do anything themselves to the sellsword and yet they command him because they can summon other sellswords… Well, why do all of those other sellswords obey? Our societies are built on this structure of sand and you see that periodically with the falls of great empires and nations… The Soviet Union, it looked solid and eternal and one day it just blew away – “we're not going to follow those guys anymore, let's get rid of them and we'll bring in some new guys.” and suddenly the Soviet Union was gone overnight. Why does that happen?... I was reading a book a couple months ago about the history of Jerusalem and this one particular crazy sultan or caliph. At one point he decided his doctors were trying to kill him so he had all of his doctors killed… okay. Then he decided that the women of the court were conspiring against him, but he liked women as they had babies and other uses, sexually and stuff like that, so he commanded his guards to cut off the hands of all of the women in the court, not only his own wives and concubines, but evidently their wives and concubines as well, and they did it! Now… what the hell was going on there? Why doesn’t the captain of the guard say to the sergeant: “this guy is fucking nuts! We have swords!!! Why don’t we kill him instead of cutting off our wives’ hands?”. I don’t really know where the matter comes from, but it’s a fascinating issue to explore and huge drama comes out of that. Don’t be surprised if sometime in ASOIAF I have a crazy king cutting off the hands of a bunch of people!

- George R.R. Martin, Chicon 7

[jewreallythinkthat]

I spent a large portion of today researching tekhelet for work as part of a piece on ancient dyes and I got so stupid emotional. Like it's just a dye, but it was such an important thing in ancient Judaism as the dye which would make tzitzit blue and the method of making it was lost around the time of the Arab conquest of Israel in the 7th century. (Also I note that lots of sources date the loss of the secret of the original manufacture but many just gloss over it mapping directly onto the colonisation of Judea/Israel by the Rashidun Caliphate - I know that the two events may not be connected but I have spent too long looking at history to be able to say that these were completely unrelated y'know... Lost knowledge is very, very rarely a coincidence)

They literally, to this day, still don't know how it was made.

There are multiple theories, most of which revolve around the murex snail (where we get Tyrian purple from) and the fact that if you expose the pigment it produces - di-bromo indigo - to light at the right point in the production process, it is reduced to regular indigo from which you can get your blue dye. But this has all been worked out using modern methods. The ancient production method of tekhelet is gone and I honestly find myself mourning yet another piece of lost knowledge form our history.

[dom-archetype]

Gender Equality in the Caliphate of India

As more and more Muslim men acquired their personal hsluts, there was a sense of jealousy amongst some Muslim women. To take out their anger and make sure that the dynamics of the relationship stay clear, they would often resort to using and abusing the hslut themselves.

Several hsluts reported that Muslim women were much more cruel than the men and would happily torture each part of their body until they become unusable. "They wanted to teach us a lesson that we are inferior to them and will always be", said Anjali, a victim of unimaginable torture at the hands of her Muslim mistress.

The Caliphate hasn't announced any legal protection for them and instead insisted that gender equality is central to their culture and so Muslim women have the right to use hsluts just as much as Muslim men.

[tamamita]

Is disliking the companions a *must* for Shi'a Muslims, or is it just the belief that Ali was our prophet's (pbuh) rightful successor and disliking the companions is merely a byproduct of said belief?

One thing that must be understood is that we Shi'as subscribe to the doctrine of Tabarrah (=dissociation). Tabarrah is the dissociation of the enemies of the Prophet (pbuh&hf) and his household (a). We're not referring to someone who is an Islamophobe, in fact, this is mostly referring to Muslims. Anyone who harbors hate towards any of them are cursed and not to be associated with. Kinda like insta-blocking someone.

To answer your question: No, because some of the companions treated the Prophet's family horribly and were responsible for a great deal of injustice leading to the death of Imam Hussain (a), the anger and sadness of Lady Fatimah (a) and the subsequent persecution of the Partisans of Ali (a). For example, you can't claim that Muawiyah was a likeable companion when he waged war against Imam Ali (a) and then gave the position of caliphate to his son Yazid (la), or that Khalid ibn Walid was a great companion when he raped the wife of a righteous Muslim. You simply can not compromise with these ideas and it's absurd to think that they should be absolved from their crimes, because they just happen to have hung out with the Prophet (pbuh&hf).

However, if there are Sunnis that revere them, it is of utmost importance that you show deference and avoid causing issues between them and you. They're still Muslim at the end. You can still criticize the companions, but don't start insulting or cursing them infront of a Sunni.

[v0idund3rth3v3il]

https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/1401QvzC6v

These are not my words, please use the link if you want to see the author.

Explanation to verse 7:81 or the "Anti-gay" verse.

People often bring up verse 7:81 with out any context to show why the Quran forbids gay people and thinks that gay sex is haram, I'm here to give the full context and show why their wrong.

For those who don't know, verse 7:81 say's something like "Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people." Which sounds bad alone until you actually take into full context what it means.

The verse is talking about the village of Lot who were actively RAPING men, not just having sex with them (a major problem in the world back then as both the Romans and Greeks were known to rape other males). As in their lust had become so overwhelming that women weren't enough anymore, they had to attack visitors (a big no no in Islamic culture) and rape them even though they where guys. The people of Lot where so depraved that they literally tried to rape angels before being wiped out so it's a warning against the depravity of rape instead of homosexuality in general as no where in the Quran, unlike the bible, does it say anything against gay sex.

The verse literally right before it say's something like (plenty of translations but roughly) "How do you commit such a horrible that NO ONE/THING BEFORE YOU HAVE COMMITTED". This can't mean homosexuality as we know homosexuality in animals does exist and homosexuality was very well known to just about every person on the planet as shocker, gay people have always existed. Historically speaking, the Code of Hammurabi , which ordered society in most of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley for more than a thousand years, has nothing to say about homosexuality. The laws of Eshunna and Egypt are also silent on the subject with us knowing that there were ancient Egyptian gay couples including a Pharaoh who was more then likely bi. The Hittites forbade father-son relations, but that was part of a general rule against incest. The Assyrians thought it shameful for a man to repeatedly offer himself to other men, and also prohibited men from raping males of the same social class, but all other male-male sexual relations were ignored. These are all states that were around centuries before Sodom and Gomorrah were apparently destroyed destroyed. The much more rational explanation would be they made an entire society based on rape of men and other "abominations" to a point where they would kick people out for wanting to stay "pure" (line 7:82), something that no group of people before them have done.

Now people will often say "if it's bad raping man then it's ok if we rape woman right?" well no. This is because when you take it with the previous verse and the verse after it, it's clear that these people wanted the pleasure of doing something that no other group of people had ever done which was the mass rape/normalization of rape of men. It's absolutely horrible but the rape of women was a lot more normalized back than and so wouldn't fit with the previous line of them doing something that no group of people/creatures had ever done before. That also explains why they didn't except Lot's daughter (which could be interpreted as him trying to save them because the angels didn't take to kindly to wanting to be raped) as they got their rocks off by doing what no other people had ever done which was to mass rape men, not women which again, is also disgusting but a lot more normal back then.

To go more into Islamic history courtesy of u/cold-blue, The grand mufti of the Abbasid caliphate in the mid-9th century, Yahya ibn Aktham, was a known homosexual, and viewed a few verses through the gender/sexuality lens.

One of them was the verse where Allah says He prepares males for some, females for others, and mixes the males and females. I’ve read that ibn Aktham once said that this verse confused people because it alludes to sexual preferences. He also said that the heavenly cupbearers mentioned in the Quran are sexual rewards like the houris. (Whether or not homosexuality is allowed in Jannah was debated, and some came to the conclusion that it is, and the only reason it isn’t in this life is because the rectum is dirty.)

The Ottoman empire, the last caliphate of the Muslim world, not only didn't care about gay people (unlike the Europeans) but actually had art depicting it.

Another is al-Razi. While he didn’t outright say that homosexuality is allowed, he allowed gay couples to be together sexually so long as they didn’t have anal sex. He was concerned with homosexual men committing suicide over their innate feelings and said that if there is risk of that, and the man cannot change himself from homosexual to heterosexual/survive in an opposite-sex marriage, he may be with his beloved (a man) so long as he does not transgress the limits (in his opinion, anal sex).

One of the transmitters of the Quranic variants we have today (of which Warsh and Hafs are two) was a man named al-Kisa’i, who was also a known homosexual. So one of the seven qira’ats came from a gay man.

There was another man ALSO named al-Kisa’i, who was a historian in 1100 CE, and he said in his Stories of the Prophets (Qiṣaṣ al-'Anbiyā') that the people of Lut were specifically MEN WITH WIVES who raped other men, not homosexual men, lining up with what we know historically.

And speaking even more so on the physical element, the male "gspot" is actual in the anus which even if you find gross, is a design of Allah and not a flaw. Why would he do that if homosexuality is a sin?

The reason homosexuality is so hated in the Islamic world is none other then the heretical Salafi and Wahhabi movements (actually considered heretics for most of the time they were around including their top scholars, not my opinion, and the only reason their not now is because of British) and because of Europeans as homosexual relationships were generally tolerated in pre-modern Islamic societies, and historical records suggest that these laws were invoked infrequently, mainly in cases of rape or other "exceptionally blatant infringement on public morals". Public attitudes toward homosexuality in the Muslim world underwent a marked negative change starting from the 19th century through the gradual spread of Islamic fundamentalist movements such as Salafism and Wahhabism, and the influence of the sexual notions and restrictive norms prevalent in Europe at the time: a number of Muslim-majority countries have retained criminal penalties for homosexual acts enacted under European colonial rule.

People often only bring up verse 7:81 and don't bring the verses directly previous or after it nor does it take into consideration the histography of their actions and the verse. It would be like me saying a book said "...kill all black people." but not elaborating and saying that the line previous to is says "These people were so horrible that they would regularly chant..." and the line after it is "I can't believe they would say/do something so disgusting." with the entire context of the book being that they would kick out anyone who didn't want to kill all black people. They only say's that the book said to kill all black people. It's very disingenuous to say the least.

To further prove my point, the word "sodomite" is often used to mean the rape of another person through the ass, not consensual sex between the two. If you google "sodomized" than you'll see rapists, not a loving consensual couple. Even the Arabic words for "sodomite" and a gay person is different as sodomite is literally translated into "lut" well a gay person is translated into "shakhs mithliu aljins".

To get more philosophical about it, sex is not some fetish which just develops in people, it is the most primal human desire that a person can have. So why would Allah make a group (there's homosexual animals as well) a certain way and then say not to follow the most basic desire they'll ever have right after wanting food and water but then say the rest of that group can follow that desire after they get married? People can control their desires until marriage as the Quran makes clear, they don't just never have sex. So why would it be any different for a gay couple? This is like saying that sex with it self is haram.

Finally, people often forget the fact that Allah is an all loving and all knowing being so why would he make certain people that he hates or want's other people to hate aka be "phobic" of when in the Quran it's made clear that we should be loving and affectionate? Now even if after all of this people still believe homosexuality is haram, Allah is said multiple time to be all loving, all understanding and all forgiving so as long they are good people and don't commit a truly horrible sin (shirk aka worship of other false gods, rape, murder, hurting others, you know, the classics) Allah will inevitably forgive them for giving into their most basic human desire especially if it's with a loving partner with in a marriage so why would anyone else have a problem with them?

I'm not gonna add a tl;dr because I worked waaay to hard on this for it be condensed into a few sentences and I really want people to read it and fully understand where it's coming from.

[whencyclopedia]

Theophilos

Theophilos was emperor of the Byzantine Empire from 829 to 842 CE. He was the second ruler of the Amorion dynasty founded by his father Michael II. Popular during his reign and responsible for a lavish rebuilding of Constantinople's palaces and fortifications, Theophilos is chiefly remembered today for a major defeat by the Arab Caliphate in 838 CE and as the last emperor who supported the policy of iconoclasm, that is the destruction of icons and their veneration being treated as heresy.

Succession & Popularity

Theophilos was from Amorion, the city in Phrygia which gave its name to the dynasty begun by his father Michael II (r. 820-829 CE). Michael's reign, tarnished right from the beginning by his brutal murder of his predecessor Leo V (r. 813-820 CE), continued its downward spiral with a serious revolt led by Thomas the Slav and significant defeats at the hands of the Arabs in Sicily and Crete.

Inheriting the throne in 829 CE aged 25, Theophilos was seen as a new hope for the empire to get back on its feet again. A return to former glories was not to be but at least Theophilos was popular because of his exuberant personality, even participating once in a chariot race in the Hippodrome of Constantinople (which he won, of course). The emperor also enjoyed a reputation as a lover of learning and justice, especially when he introduced the tradition of the emperor riding to church on Fridays and permitting any commoner to throw questions of justice or appeals his way. The historian J. Herrin recounts one such episode:

On one of the occasions a widow complained to Theophilos that she had been defrauded of a horse by the city eparch. Indeed, she claimed it was the vey horse he was riding! He ordered an investigation and discovered that her story was correct: the eparch had taken her horse and given it to the emperor. Theophilos immediately returned the horse to its rightful owner and had the very high-ranking official punished. (75)

Another eccentricity of the emperor was the habit of walking about the streets of his capital in disguise asking the people what they thought of the problems of the day and checking if the merchants were selling their goods at fair prices. Theophilos' reputation for learning stemmed not only from his own education but his endorsement of everyone else's - he increased the faculties of the university at the capital, increased the number of scriptoria where manuscripts were duplicated, and ensured that teachers were paid by the state.

Continue reading...

[still-searching-for-something]

First off, I limit this discussion to being modern antizionism--pre-state antizionism could have more leeway, as Israel was an entirely theoretical discussion, and antizionism would not have involved destroying a state, but that's a different conversation altogether.

I hold that there are two, and only two instances where antizionism in the modern day is not antisemitic.

1. You're an anarchist who believes in no states, including Palestine, and including Israel. This comes with the caveat, though, that you have to be condemning all states equally--if you're theoretically in favor of all states being destroyed, but in practice only talk about Israel's destruction, you're antisemitic. And anyway, anarchism is childish, naive, extreme and dangerous--especially in the 'destroy all states immediately' kind of way, so you're a fool at minimum, even if you aren't antisemitic.

2. You're a religiously frum Jew who believes the state of Israel is premature and can only be inaugurated with the coming of Moshiach. This too comes with caveats, however, and I think a good way to demonstrate this is by comparing Satmar and JVP/Neturei Karta.

For those not familiar (I imagine 99% of Jews are familiar with these groups, but any goyim who see this may not be) Satmar is an extremely observant Haredi Orthodox Jewish group, for whom antizionism is an important part of their theology and practice. Jewish Voices for Peace are a hate group which is about as Jewish as a swastika, and Neturei Karta are a cult of self hating Haredi Jews who eagerly tokenize themselves.

Now, I disagree with Satmar in a variety of areas, including how they treat women, how they interpret the Torah and the role of Jews in modern society, and a whole lot more, including their antizionism. BUT, they are one of the few antizionists whom I would argue are not antisemitic, because —this is the key—they push back against any attempt by left wing antizionists to tokenize them or use their antizionist views as “proof” that to be a “good Jew” you need to disavow Zionism and Israel. Satmar also makes no claim to representing a majority Jewish view, and make no effort to dismantle, demonize, or discredit Israel—they just stay away from its government and refuse to interact with it or benefit from it. I guess you could argue this isn't even antizionism as much as it is non-zionism, but I digress.

This stands in stark contrast to JVP and NK, who both consistently support extremist views about Israel, post false accusations and propaganda against it, and portray themselves as the “Jews of conscience”, the REAL Jews and that anyone who disagrees with them is a (((Zionist))) colonizer and genocidal maniac. Satmar was horrified by October 7th. JVP and NK celebrated and then denied it. Satmar distances themselves from the antisemites who point to Satmar as an example of “good antizionist Jews”. Neturei Karta and JVP embrace that role.

Notice how, in my long list of non-antisemitic antizionists (which consisted of two instances), "white progressive goy who wants to see Israel destroyed" was not on it. Nor was Soviet antizionism. Nor is the Tumblrina who whines about Palestinian "genocide" and Israel being an apartheid state. Nor is the Islamist who jerks off the idea of a massive caliphate.

Wow, it's almost like outside of very limited circumstances, antizionism is a cheap cover for antisemitism! Crazy, right?

[mossadspypigeon]

so, other than calling people antisemites, do you have any actual arguments against palestine? do you have any mercy for the people killed? or is bombing schools antiterrorism?

the antisemitism expressed by palestinians isn’t enough lmao?

also bombing wchools? bitch, school hasn’t been in session in a YEAR. hamas was operating out of a fucking school. no students were killed. hamas leaders and members were.

hamas can turn former schools into military bases, can ONLY target women and children, can kidnap and murder jews, can turn children’s bedrooms into rocket launching pads and build tunnels under kids’s beds and LIE ABOUT THE DEATH COUNT LMAO and they are still above reproach to you idiots.

hamas’ entire agenda can be ACTUAL GENOCIDE of jews and they can take the protocols of the elders of zion as fact:

ever read hamas’ charter? lmao

but antisemitism is okay to all of you right? wanting jews annihilated is a perfectly okay goal to you?

you realize hamas’ goal is to reinstate the caliphate system, but expand it all over the world?

like lmao you don’t even know who you’re shilling for. this is basic colonization.

you all infantilize arabs, especially palestinians, because the “poor lil muslims must be violent and want death” and excuse them of any bad behavior. it’s disgusting and orientalist. they can kill and rape whoever they want and you still defend them. they can express all the nazi views in the world and you still think they’re great.

pathetic honestly.

like the antisemitism and jew hate expressed by them aren’t enough for you to go “oh wait, maybe they aren’t the good guys.” 😂🤦🏽‍♀️

[girlactionfigure]

Here are 50 Palestinian Lies Since Last Saturday, 7 October 2023:

1- Hamas killed nobody.

2- Hamas only killed IDF soldiers.

3- The soldiers Hamas targeted were not in uniform.

4- Okay, Hamas killed civilians, but they’re part of the occupation.

5- Hamas didn’t kill children.

6- Hamas didn’t burn children.

7- The fire was an accident.

8- Hamas didn’t kidnap children.

9- Hamas takes care of child hostages.

10- Hamas didn’t rape women.

11- Other people raped the women.

12- The Hamas fighters who raped will be punished. 

13- Hamas didn’t bomb people hiding in bomb shelters. 

14- Only one bomb shelter was bombed. 

15 - Hamas didn’t shoot people as they fled.

16- The people who were shot while fleeing were guilty of occupation.

17- Hamas is not a terrorist group. 

18- Hamas is a resistance group.

19- Jews began the conflict in 1948, Hamas is still resisting that today.

20- Hamas doesn’t idolize Hitler.

21- Only some Hamas members love Hitler. 

22- Hamas is different from ISIS.

23- Only some Palestinians joined ISIS in 2014. 

24- Hamas doesn’t want a global Caliphate, (when Hamas’ Charter says they strive for a global caliphate).

25- Hamas respects Human rights, but… “Jews are not Humans”

26- Palestinians don’t idolize Saddam Hussein, despite him having roads, roundabouts named after him in Gaza and West Bank - and his photos raised in Palestinian protests.

27- Hamas does not steal. 

28- Hamas only takes what it needs to protect Palestinian interests. 

29- Hamas doesn’t kill Palestinians.

30- Only some Hamas rockets accidentally land in Gaza and kill Palestinians. 

31- Hamas never uses human shields.

32- Only in some cases Hamas may use human shields. 

33- We don’t want to drown Jews in the sea. We want a peaceful solution. 

34- There will be no peace until all the land is ours and the Jews return to Europe. 

35- All the Arab states have betrayed us.

36- All the Arab states are supporting us. 

37- Iran doesn’t fund Hamas.

38- Iran only supplies Hamas with weapons, not money.

39- Iran only pays our soldiers’ salaries. 

40- Hamas is not the Muslim Brotherhood. 

41- Hamas was only founded by the Muslim Brotherhood. 

42- Palestinians didn’t support Osama Bin Laden.

43- Only some Palestinians (thousands) celebrated on 9/11.

44- Nobody gave Palestinians a chance to govern themselves.

45- Yes we elected Hamas in Gaza, but Hamas doesn’t represent us.

46- Sometimes Hamas represents us, and sometimes it doesn’t. It depends.

47- Palestinians are indigenous to the Holy Land.

48- Yasser Arafat was Egyptian, but he was also indigenous to Palestine. 

49- Palestinians who stab Jews get paid because their families need to eat. 

50- It’s all the Jewish people’s fault.

———

If you’ve seen another lie being amplified over the last week, feel free to add it to the list below.

Imam of Peace

[uma1ra]

SUBHAN'ALLAH, THIS TEXT CONTAINS VERY INFORMATIVE KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL!! READ & SPREAD IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, IT WILL BE SADQA-E-JARIAH FOR YOU AND ME.

1-Akhi - Brother

2-Ukhti - Sister

3-JazakAllah khair - May Allah give you Ajar/Sawab for your deed.

4-Ma'Shaa'Allah - As God has willed.

5-HayakAllah - May Allah give you life.

6-BarakAllahu Feek - May Allah put baraka in what you are doing.

7-Wa feeka barakallahu - and May Allah bless you. (in response to Barakallahu Feek)

8-Wa iyyakum - And to you

9-Alhamdulillah - Praise be to Allah

10-Allah - God

11-Allahu Akbar - Allah is Most Great

12-Amanah - Trust

13-Assalamu Alaikum - Peace be upon you--the "official" Islamic greeting.

14-Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh - "Peace and the Mercy and Blessings of God be upon you" Extended form of the above.

16-Astaghfir Allah - I seek forgiveness from Allah (used when mentioning something that goes against the standards of Islam)

17-Ayah/Ayat - Qur'anic verse

18-Bid`ah - Innovation, addition to the religion's essentials

19-Bukhari - One of the most noted compilers of hadith. His collection is 20-known as Sahih Bukhari

21-Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim - In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, Most Merciful

23-Da'wa - Invitation (for humankind to Islam)

24-Du`aa - Supplication

25-Eid - Islamic holiday

26-Fatwa - Islamic legal ruling

27-Fiqh - Islamic law as interpreted by scholars

28-Fitnah - Corruption and disorder, also temptation

29-Hadith - A report of a saying or deed of the Prophet

30-Haj - Pilgrimage

31-Halal - Allowed (per Islamic law)

32-Haram - Forbidden (per Islamic law)

33-Hazrat/Hadrat - Honorable

34-Hijab - Modest way of behavior and dress (including head scarf for women)

35-Imam - Leader

36-Iman - Faith

37-In Shaa Allah - If God wills. (Used when talking about a future event)

38-Injeel - The scripture sent down to Prophet Issa (Jesus)

39-Isnad - Chain of transmitters, the list of people who successively narrated a given hadith

40-Jannah - Paradise

41-JazakAllah Khair - May God grant you what is good. (Often used instead of "Thank you")

42-Jihad - Striving for Islam, whether by peaceful or violent means

43-Jinn - Unseen beings, who, like humans, are given the power to choose between right and wrong

44-Kafir - One who denies the truth. Literally, one who "covers" the truth (sometimes applied to non-Muslims).

45-Khalifah - Caliph: Leader of Muslim nation

46-Khilafah - Caliphate

47-Khutba - Sermon

48-Kufr - Denial of the Truth, rebellion against God

49-La Ilaha Illa Allah - There is no deity but God

50-Ma Shaa Allah - What God has willed! (Usually used to express wonder at Allah's creation)

51-Madhhab - School of jurisprudential thought

52-Makruh - Detested, but not forbidden (per Islamic law)

53-Mandoub - Recommended, but not required (per Islamic law)

54-Mubah - Neither forbidden nor commended. Neutral (per Islamic law)

55-Mushrik - One who commits Shirk

56-Muslim - One who submits to Allah and is a follower of Islam; also, name of one of the most notable hadith scholars. His collection is known as Sahih Muslim

57-Nabi - Prophet

58-Qur'an - The Words of Allah conveyed to us by the Prophet

PBUH - Peace Be Upon Him. Same as SAW

59-RAA - (Radia Allahu Anhu/Anha.) May Allah be please with him/her

60-Ra-sool - Messenger (Prophet to whom a scripture is revealed)

61-Rasool Allah - Messenger of God (used to refer to Prophet Muhammad)

62-Sahaba - Companions of Prophet. Singular is "Sahabi"

63-Sahih - "Sound in isnad." A technical attribute applied to the "isnad" of a hadith

64-Salaam - Peace. An abbreviated version of the Islamic greeting

65-Salaat - Prayer

66-SAW - (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam.) Peace Be Upon Him

67-Sawm/Siyam - Fasting

68-Seerah/Sirah - History of the Prophet's life

69-Shahadah - Bearing witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger.

70-Shari'ah - Divine Law

71-Sheikh - Scholar (or any elder and/or respected man)

72-Shirk - Associating partners (e.g. helpers, other gods) with Allah

73-Shura - Consultation among Muslims

74-Subhan Allah - "Glory be to God"

75-Sunna/Sunnah - Tradition of the Prophet

76-Surah/Sura - A Chapter in the Qur'an

78-Tafsir - Interpretation

79-Tawraat - The scripture sent down to Prophet Musa (Moses).

80-Ulama - Religious scholars

81-Umma - Nation, community.

82-Ustadh - Teacher

83-Wassalaam - And peace. It means "goodbye"

84-Zakat - Required charity

[jewish-sideblog]

a two state solution is racist. there is no way an occupying colonial force deserves the land of those it colonized ever, especially if the people whose land was stolen are still alive and want to go back to it. a one state multinational secular palestinian state is the ONLY solution.

About 50% of Israelis, accounting for about three and a half million Jews, are ethnically Mizrahi. I’ll save you the trouble of looking that word up because you’ve clearly never heard it before. They’re Jews that never left the Middle East. Plenty of them never left the land that became the Mandate of Palestine in the first place. The rest were forced to emigrate to Israel by neighboring Arab countries. Where do you want them to go? Hamas certainly won’t let them keep hanging out.

The rest of the Jews in the country are diasporic. Which means Jews who were violently uprooted from their homelands in 70 CE. And 132 CE. And 617. And 717. And 1066. And 1099. And 1465. And 1834. And 1929. Plenty of those dates refer to times when imperialist Muslim caliphates tried to destroy Jewish presence in their ancestral homelands to replace them with Arab Muslims. One of those dates refers to a time when Palestinians mass-murdered and ethnically cleansed indigenous Jews. Do you know which ones are which? Do a little research and find out, instead of just parroting propaganda.

You’re totally right. There’s no way an occupying force that’s killed and displaced native peoples deserves to rule over the land it’s colonized, especially if the people who’s land has been stolen are still alive and want to return to it. That was one of the foundational ideologies of early Zionism when the land was ruled by… Turkey. Not Palestinians. Not even Arabs. Turkey.

Colonial rule can be avoided when two indigenous groups with equally valid claims to the same land stop butchering each other for land grabs, nationalism, and dominance. So either a joint rule, or a two-state solution.

And where are you calling from, America? Next.

[the-ind1gen0us-jude4n]

What’s the basic history you’re talking about in regard to Israeli right to that land?

The basic history I'm talking about is the right for the Jewish people to live in our ancestral and our indigenous homeland.

The basic history I'm talking about is The 40 years in Sinai, King David and Solomons kingdom, the Maccabbes and the story of Channukah, the romans renaming Judea "Syria-Palestine", the arab conquests and the forced integration of Judea into the caliphate and the forced islamisation of Judea. I'm talking about the First and Second temple and their destruction, and the colonial islamic rulers building a mosque right ontop of our holiest sight. The language we speak and the connection it has to eretz yisrael.

About how we were forcefully exiled by the romans, and how we were treated as dhimmis by the caliphate and the islamic colonists. About how they treated us like the Nazis did in Germany. (Raised taxes, identifying clothing etc.)

And how millions of people worldwide have the gall to question our right to the land, and our right to live in peace in our own state on our ancestral homeland. And sympathise with terrorists and falling for their traps all because they hate Jews.