#specifically an islamic one but more so of my own interpretation since there is still debate to this day if fallen angels exist in islam

[thepalmofyourfreezinghand]

Can you guys comprehend sarcasm - that was the atheism comment. Like I hundred percent did not take it as a completely serious thing... it's like man, religious people get offended when you discuss abortions with them near but when is it my turn?

Some of these Matty things could be resolved if you all actually were not hell-bent on interpreting stuff in a way that "offends" you.

Same goes for emasculating comment about Taylor which was said yeeaaarsss ago.

Similar can be applied to this interview where he clearly means to say criticizing big religions is a bit of a problem and islam as such is a good example because critcising that religion is actually closely intertwined with actual racism towards people who participate in that religion. But you all have not had a single debate or reading comprehension class idk mate it's becoming more difficult to understand people.

And so when you are going headfirst through the wall on these issues, NO ONE can take you seriously if you want to actually address smth of value regarding him being an idiot asshole.

Not you saying that I’ve never had a single debate or reading comprehension class when I was literally a finalist in a national debate competition in high school and I read 50+ classics a year ahskshsjsjsj.

1. First of all, in his interview he made the specific example of Islam. He could’ve chosen Christianity and we likely wouldn’t be having this conversation, but he didn’t! He said those things as an atheist who lives in a country where the majority of people are Christian, and Muslim people are a minority. Do you realize that this context matters? I’m in the same condition as he is: I’m an atheist living in a Catholic country. You realize that, since I live in a country where there are 100.000 churches and only 12 Mosques (unfortunately a true story), because the construction of new Mosques is opposed by so many people, a country where Muslim people are still discriminated against, it’s not the same for me to criticize Catholicism or to criticize Islam?

2. He said “Nowadays, I think if you’re like piously religious, if you’re dogmatically faithful, you should be kind of ashamed of yourself”. How is that not offensive? How is that not ignorant? Why should you offend so many people instead of talking about SPECIFIC things and specific behaviors and specific acts? In Italian we say “fare di tutta l’erba un fascio”, which means “to bundle all the grass together”. You can translate it as “mixing apples with oranges”. Well, why is he doing that? Has he personally met every single pious person on the planet? What gives him the right to say that they should be ashamed of themselves? There’s plenty to criticize about the misinterpretation of religion (like the protests by Christians outside of abortion clinics or what’s happening in Iran). So, why on earth is he attacking PEOPLE instead of condemning specific ACTIONS or GOVERNMENTS? People who follow a religion dogmatically and don’t hurt others have nothing to be ashamed of, are you kidding me? I don’t think he understands the difference between criticizing a religion and being racist towards its members, or he wouldn’t have said something that has such strong racist undertones.

And I’m the FIRST to criticize Catholicism. Hell, I talk shit about Catholicism (which is the religion practiced by the majority in my country) every single day. You know what I don’t do, though? I don’t criticize the people who believe in a religion, especially not those who are also minorities.

3. The funny thing is that atheists have plenty of rights. Our right not to be “offended” by religion or not to have to deal with religion is protected. I can only speak for my own country, but we’ve had tons of sentences from the constitutional court about the rights of atheist not to be subject to religion (like a beautifully reasoned sentence about the right of students not to attend religion classes, which were inserted as mandatory during the fascist period). There are limits to this, obviously. For example, because of the influence of Catholicism, Italy is still the only country in Western Europe to only grant a civil union, and not also marriage, to people of the same sex. But that has everything to do with the influence of Catholicism and nothing to do with the rights of atheists, because there are also tons of same-sex Christian couples who would wanna marry. Atheists per se have all the rights they (we) want.

So yeah.

1. Can you really call it sarcasm if it falls flat and it’s stupid and it’s intertwined with racism?

2. He talked specifically about Islam, which is a minority. And again, context matters: you can’t come here and make the example of abortion clinics to defend his case when he was SPECIFICALLY talking about Islam and falling into stereotypes.

3. He talked about people when the problem isn’t single people who practice a religion.

Hope that helps!

[musea-reviews]

Museum Catharijneconvent (St. Catherine's Convent Museum)

‘’The collection tells the art and cultural history of Christianity in the Netherlands.’’ 

Location: Center of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands Price: 15,- / students 7,- Duration: 2 - 5 hours Transport: easy to walk to from the central station Language: All text is in Dutch, I didn't ask if the audio tour could change the language Activities: look & read Date of visit: Friday 17 February 2023 Expo at that time: History of Gospel Check out the website

The building was very beautiful from the outside as it was located inside a medieval monastery. You could look in the small garden area for free.

The Children Room The first part of the museum I went to was intended for children and was about all the holidays, this part of the museum even had information on other religions like Judaism and Islam. As these religions and Christianity come from the same set of stories and historical events. The information didn't go very deep since it said things like “the Christmas tree is a part of Christmas because it stays green all year around‘’ instead of explaining it came from pagan religions. I did learn however that we have new year's on the day that we do (8 days after Christmas) because that's when Jesus supposedly got circumcised. Which was a shocking reason to me that I didn't knew. This part did also have some fun interactive elements, such as opening food lockers from a wall to connect 4 kinds of food to the right holiday. Sadly, one of the screens was broken, and the lights were off/broken in that corner, so I couldn’t film it.

Another cool thing there was a built replica of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, with light projections explaining why these 3 religions all want to own this place and fight for it. I was all alone in this part of the museum, probably because it was on a school day

The Treasury The next part of the museum was the treasury, a dim lid room full of shiny objects, I loved it. This is also where the ‘’real’’ museum started, so I got handed an audio tour. I love audio tours. However, on the lowest audio setting, it was still too loud for me. But I simply put the headphones further from my ears, you can also use your own headphones if they have a cord. 

Keeping it real I found it all very interesting, I was a bit disappointed that it was not about other religions anymore, but I went in this blindly and didn't know it was specifically a museum of Christianity. Personally, I don't believe in anything, but love to learn about religions. Next to the normal audio tour that talked about the paintings and the history, they also added some new numbers to the audio tour talking more about controversies about some paintings and people. I liked this since they weren't glorifying the religion and showed more about how it was done back in the day. For instance, in the extra audio tour, they talked about Jesus' skin colour and how everywhere in the museum he's portrayed as a white man with long brown hair, meanwhile, this doesn't have to be the case. They explained that it's easier for people to feel connected to stories if they can see themselves in them. The person being interviewed said that when they visited a church in Surinam they saw the painting of ‘’The Last Supper’’ but with everyone being black. They stated in this interview that they're working on adding more diverse pieces like that to the museum, and assured that they were working on a big new collection of different interpretations of the catholic stories. For now, they had an exposition about the history of gospel in America and told the stories of black artists. I didn't see much of it since I couldn't find the right way to walk thou the exhibition and my legs were already hurting since I had been there for 5 hours.

TLDR + Fun room about holidays, not only about Christianity but also about Muslims and Jewish religion. + In the centre of the city, easy to just pop in and out on a city trip. + inclusive and does not give a blind eye to the bad things of Christianity.

- it was pretty hard to navigate the museum and I kept getting lost, don't know if I missed parts of the museum - I do not recommend it to children/teens since there was not a lot to do

Would I pay the price: No, this would not have my interest Would I revisit it: probably not Who do I recommend it to: Adults interested in Christianity or history Interactive:         2 Educational: 4 Storytelling: 2 Price: 3 Memorable: 4 Total score: 3

[vergilthelibrarian]

Holy.

FallenAngel!Taeyong x GenderNeutral!Reader

Angels weren’t suppose to disobey God, that is what you were taught to believe.

Angels were beings of light, made to carry out and enforce God’s will and follow his every command.

But you never understood why they were still being tested by God if they weren’t even created with freewill.

So, you did research.

You searched up different Abrahamic thoughts on Angels and came to your own conclusion that Angels can indeed disobey God, it’s just that it wasn’t really common. Their love for God was so strong that they couldn’t disobey him. They always followed his every order.

But keep in my mind that some Angels did fall and the difference between them and a Demon is that Fallen Angels still retain their holiness.

Their blood bleeds of gold and their eyes burned like fire.

They were messengers, warriors, protectors, guardians, worshipers of the creator and though they were now of this earthly realm, their holiness still manifested, in either good ways or bad.

~~

You stretched a bit as you walked home, your lower back causing you a bit of pain. You hated your job. Having to be on your feet all day was honestly the worse but you needed money.

Being a broke college student definitely was not fun.

As you walked, a white light flashed in the sky suddenly, causing you to yell out and cover your eyes.

You were walking on a sidewalk and there were no cars driving on the road. The area you were at was pretty deserted at this time of night so what just happened?

You moved your hands from your eyes and opened them and saw a man about 6 feet away from you staring across the street and out to the lake.

Looking to your side out to the lake, you were met with complete darkness.

What was the stranger even staring at?

Turning your head back around you flinched slightly.

The man was now staring at you, his intense eyes genuinely scaring you.

You gulped as you turned around, with the plan of going to another bus stop, only to bump into the man that was staring at you.

You backed away a bit, your eyes never leaving his intense gaze.

How did he appear in front of you?

“I can see them near you… My siblings. They’re trying to protect you from me.”

You frowned in confusion.

“Usually, you have two angels always guarding you. One in the front and one in the back. You are assigned four angels in total so the other two can take breaks… You only have three.”

Your eyes widen slightly.

“What?” you said out loud though you knew exactly what he was talking about.

Everyone was born with four guardian angels and they would always take turns guarding the person they were assigned to in pairs of two.

How come you only had three?

“We angels… Beings made of light. Made serve Him. To love Him and follow his every command.” he sighed. “And though I still love my father, I somehow let human emotions get to me and end up falling for you, the human I was assigned to protect.”

The angel looked up at the sky.

“Every time I look up at the sky, I get homesick. There’s a part of me that wants to go back but…” he slowly turn his gaze back to you. “That means, I won’t be able to be near you anymore. To see you, hear you, breathe the same air as you. They wouldn’t allow it if I go back.”

He tried to walk towards you but stopped immediately.

“I see they’re ready to fight me in order to protect you.”

He backed away slightly.

“I don’t know what any of these emotions mean. They’re so alien to me.” his eyes soften as he looked at you. “All I know is the want I have for you. A need that can’t seem to go away no matter how much I prayed for it to go.”

His eyes harden again.

“I will have you. One way or another I will have you and my siblings guardianship over you will be no more and I will be all that you need in this sinful world.”

The angel glanced away for a second before looking back at you once more.

“We’ll meet again real soon. Nothing will keep us apart, not my siblings nor my father.” a smile grew on his face as his eyes soften again. “I love you.” he said softly.

A flash of white light blinded you once more and soon the angel was gone and you were alone again.

What had just happened to you didn’t shock you at all, you’ve always been a rather spiritual person but… it did scare you.

You had a fallen angel in love with you, one of the most powerful beings in this universe besides God himself.

What was going to happen to you?

You couldn’t think of what may happen to you once the angel appears to you again but all you can do is pray that you’ll be safe.

Angels weren’t soft beings.

They were genuinely scarier than demons, stronger than demons, and downright more ruthless than demons.

God made demons to experience emotions just like humans while he made angels to be unemotional, only serving God and his will.

For an angel to experience human emotion you’ve read stories from mystics on how troubling it can be for these angels to deal with them but you also read on how sadistic these angels can become. How evil they can become.

What was going to happen to you when you meet the angel again?

You had no idea and it was because of that, you were terrified.

[howelljenkins]

As a muslim Iraqi American with a significant tumblr following, I feel as though I should let it be known exactly where I stand when it comes to Riordan’s statement about Samirah. I have copied and pasted it down below and my reaction to it will be written down below. This will be the first time I have read it. If you want to engage with me or tell me that I’m wrong, I expect you to be a muslim, hijabi, Iraqi American, and from Baghdad. If you are not, I suggest you sit down and keep quiet because you are not the authority on the way I should be represented.

Like many of my characters, Samirah was inspired by former students of mine. Over the course of my middle school teaching career, I worked with dozens of Muslim students and their families, representing the expanse of the Muslim world and both Shia and Sunni traditions. One of my most poignant memories about the September 11, 2001, attack of the World Trade Center was when a Muslima student burst into tears when she heard the news – not just because it was horrific, but also because she knew what it meant for her, her family, her faith. She had unwillingly become an ambassador to everyone she knew who, would have questions about how this attack happened and why the perpetrators called themselves “Muslim.” Her life had just become exponentially more difficult because of factors completely beyond her control. It was not right. It was not fair. And I wasn’t sure how to comfort or support her.

Starting off your statement with one of the most traumatic events in history for muslim Americans is already one of the most predictably bad moves he could pull. By starting off this way, you are acknowledging the fact that a) this t*rrorist attack is still the first thing you think of when you think of muslims and b) that those muslim students who you had prior to 9/11 occupied so little space in your mind that it took a national disaster for you to start to even try to empathize with them.

During the following years, I tried to be especially attuned to the needs of my Muslim students. I dealt with 9/11 the same way I deal with most things: by reading and learning more. When I taught world religions in social studies, I would talk to my Muslim students about Islam to make sure I was representing their experience correctly. They taught me quite a bit, which eventually contributed to my depiction of Samirah al-Abbas. As always, though, where I have made mistakes in my understanding, those mistakes are wholly on me.

As always, you have chosen to use “I based this character off my students” in order to justify the way they are written. News flash: you taught middle school children. Children who are already scrutinized and alienated and desperate to fit in. Of course their words shouldn’t be enough for you to decide you are representing them correctly, because they are still coming to terms with their identities and they are doing this in an environment where they are desperate to find the approval of white Americans. I know that as a child I would often tweak the way I explained my culture and religion to my teachers in order to gain their approval and avoid ruffling any feathers. They told you what they thought you’d want to hear because you are their teacher and hold a position of power over them and they both want your approval and want to avoid saying the wrong thing and having that hang over their heads every time they enter your classroom.

What did I read for research? I have read five different English interpretations of the Qur’an. (I understand the message is inseparable from the original Arabic, so it cannot be considered ‘translated’). I have read the entirety of the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim hadith collections. I’ve read three biographies of Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) and well over a dozen books about the history of Islam and modern Islam. I took a six-week course in Arabic. (I was not very good at it, but I found it fascinating). I fasted the month of Ramadan in solidarity with my students. I even memorized some of the surahs in Arabic because I found the poetry beautiful. (They’re a little rusty now, I’ll admit, but I can still recite al-Fātihah from memory.) I also read some anti-Islamic screeds written in the aftermath of 9/11 so I would understand what those commenters were saying about the religion, and indirectly, about my students. I get mad when people attack my students.

And yet here you are actively avoiding the criticism from those of us who could very well have been the children sitting in your classroom. 

The Quran is so deep and complex that its meanings are still being discovered to this day. Yes, reading these old scripts is a must for writing muslim characters, but you cannot claim to understand them without also holding active discussions with current scholars on how the Quran’s teachings apply today.

When preparing to write Samirah’s background, I drew on all of this, but also read many stories on Iraqi traditions and customs in particular and the experiences of immigrant families who came to the U.S. I figured out how Samirah’s history would intertwine with the Norse world through the medieval writer Ahmad ibn Fadhlan, her distant ancestor and one of the first outsiders to describe the Vikings in writing.  I knew Samirah would be a ferocious brave fighter who always stood for what was right. She would be an excellent student who had dreams of being an aviator. She would have a complicated personal situation to wrestle with, in that she’s a practicing Muslim who finds out Valhalla is a real place. Odin and Thor and Loki are still around. How do you reconcile that with your faith? Not only that, but her mom had a romance with Loki, who is her dad. Yikes.

First of all, writing this paragraph in the same tone you use to emulate a 12 year old is already disrespectful. “Yikes” is correct. You have committed serious transgressions and can’t even commit to acting serious and writing like the almost 60 year old man that you are. Tone tells the reader a lot, and your tone is telling me that you are explaining your mistakes the same way you tell your little stories: childishly and jokingly. 

Stories are not enough. They are not and never will be. Stories cannot even begin to pierce the rich culture and history and customs of Iraq. Iraq itself is not even homogenous enough for you to rely on these “Iraqi” stories. Someone’s story from Najaf is completely unique from someone from Baghdad or Nasriyyah or Basrah or Mosul. Add that to the fact that these stories are written with a certain audience in mind and you realize that there’s no way they can tell the whole story because at their core they are catering to a specific audience.

Yes, those are good, but they are meaningless without you consulting an actual Baghdadi and asking specific questions. You made conclusions and assumptions based on these stories when the obvious way to go was to consult someone from Baghdad every step of the writing process. Instead, you chose to trust the conclusions that you (a white man) drew from a handful of stories. Who are you to convey a muslim’s internal struggle when you did not even do the bare minimum and have an actual muslim read over your words?

Thankfully, the feedback from Muslim readers over the years to Samirah al-Abbas has been overwhelmingly positive. I have gotten so many letters and messages online from young fans, talking about how much it meant to them to see a hijabi character portrayed in a positive light in a ‘mainstream’ novel.

Yeah. Because we’re desperate, and half of them are children still developing their sense of self and critical reading skills. A starving man will thank you for moldy bread but that does not negate the mold. 

Some readers had questions, sure! The big mistake I will totally own, and which I have apologized for many times, was my statement that during the fasting hours of Ramadan, bathing (i.e. total immersion in water) was to be avoided. This was advice I had read on a Shia website when I myself was preparing to fast Ramadan. It is advice I followed for the entire month. Whoops! The intent behind that advice, as I understood it, was that if you totally immersed yourself during daylight hours, you might inadvertently get some water between your lips and invalidate your fast. But, as I have since learned, that was simply one teacher’s personal opinion, not a widespread practice. We have corrected this detail (which involved the deletion of one line) in future editions, but as I mentioned in my last post, you will still find it in copies since the vast majority of books are from the first printing.

This is actually really embarrassing for you and speaks to your lack of research and reading comprehension. It is true that for shia, immersion breaks one’s fast. If you had bothered to actually ask questions and use common sense, you would realize that this is referring to actions like swimming, where one’s whole body is underwater, rather than bathing. Did you not question the fact that the same religion that encourages the cleansing of oneself five times a day banned bathing during the holiest month? Yes, it was one teacher’s opinion, but you literally did not even take the time to fully understand that opinion before chucking it into your book.

Another question was about Samirah’s wearing of the hijab. To some readers, she seemed cavalier about when she would take it off and how she would wear it. It’s not my place to be prescriptive about proper hijab-wearing. As any Muslim knows, the custom and practice varies greatly from one country to another, and from one individual to another. I can, however, describe what I have seen in the U.S., and Samirah’s wearing of the hijab reflects the practice of some of my own students, so it seemed to be within the realm of reason for a third-generation Iraqi-American Muslima. Samirah would wear hijab most of the time — in public, at school, at mosque. She would probably but not always wear it in Valhalla, as she views this as her home, and the fallen warriors as her own kin. This is described in the Magnus Chase books. I also admit I just loved the idea of a Muslima whose hijab is a magic item that can camouflage her in times of need.

Before I get into this paragraph, Samirah is second generation. Her grandparents immigrated from Iraq. Her mother was first gen.

Once again, you turn to what you have seen from your students, who are literal children. They are in middle school while Samirah is in high school, so they are very obviously at different stages of development, both emotional and religious. If you had bothered to talk to adults who had gone through these stages, you would understand that often times young girls have stages where they “practice” hijab or wear it “part time”, very often in middle school. However, both her age and the way in which you described Samirah lead the reader to believe that she is a “full timer,” so you playing willy nilly with her scarf as a white man is gross.

For someone who claims to have read all of these religious texts, it’s funny that you choose to overlook the fact that “kin” is very specifically described. Muslims do not go around deciding who they consider “kin” or “family” to take off their hijab in front of. There is no excuse for including this in her character, especially since you claim to have carefully read the Quran and ahadith.

You have no place to “just love” any magical extension of the hijab until you approach it with respect. Point blank period. Especially when you have ascribed it a magical property that justifies her taking it on and off like it’s no big deal, especially when current media portrayals of hijab almost always revolve around it being removed. You are adding to the harmful portrayal and using your “fun little magic camoflauge” to excuse it.

As for her betrothal to Amir Fadhlan, only recently have I gotten any questions about this. My understanding from my readings, and from what I have been told by Muslims I know, is that arranged marriages are still quite common in many Muslim countries (not just Muslim countries, of course) and that these matches are sometimes negotiated by the families when the bride-to-be and groom-to-be are quite young. Prior to writing Magnus Chase, one of the complaints I often heard or read from Muslims is how Westerners tend to judge this custom and look down on it because it does not accord with Western ideas. Of course, arranged marriages carry the potential for abuse, especially if there is an age differential or the woman is not consulted. Child marriages are a huge problem. The arrangement of betrothals years in advance of the marriage, however, is an ancient custom in many cultures, and those people I know who were married in this way have shared with me how glad they were to have done it and how they believe the practice is unfairly villainized. My idea with Samirah was to flip the stereotype of the terrible abusive arranged match on its head, and show how it was possible that two people who actually love each other dearly might find happiness through this traditional custom when they have families that listen to their concerns and honor their wishes, and want them to be happy. Amir and Samirah are very distant cousins, yes. This, too, is hardly unusual in many cultures. They will not actually marry until they are both adults. But they have been betrothed since childhood, and respect and love each other. If that were not the case, my sense is that Samirah would only have to say something to her grandparents, and the match would be cancelled. Again, most of the comments I have received from Muslim readers have been to thank me for presenting traditional customs in a positive rather than a negative light, not judging them by Western standards. In no way do I condone child marriage, and that (to my mind) is not anywhere implied in the Magnus Chase books.

I simply can’t even begin to explain everything that is wrong with this paragraph. Here is a good post about how her getting engaged at 12 is absolutely wrong religiously and would not happen. Add that on to the fact that Samirah herself is second-generation (although Riordan calls her third generation in this post) and this practice isn’t super common even in first generation people (and for those that it DOES apply to, it is when they are old enough to be married and not literal children). 

As a white man you can’t flip the stereotype. You can’t. Even with tons of research you cannot assume the authority to “flip” a stereotype that does not affect you because you will never come close to truly understanding it inside and out. Instead of flipping a stereotype, Rick fed into it and provided more fodder to the flames and added on to it to make it even worse.

I would be uncomfortable with a white author writing about arranged marriages in brown tradition no matter the context, but for him to offhandedly include it in a children’s book where it is badly explained and barely touched on is inexcusable. Your target audience is children who will no doubt overlook your clumsy attempt at flipping stereotypes.

It does not matter what your mind thinks you are implying. Rick Riordan is not your target audience, children are. So you cannot brush this away by stating that you did not see the harm done by your writing. You are almost 60 years old. Maybe you can read in between your lines, but I guarantee your target audience largely cannot.

Finally, recently someone on Twitter decided to screenshot a passage out-of-context from Ship of the Deadwhere Magnus hears Samirah use the phrase “Allahu Akbar,” and the only context he has ever heard it in before was in news reports when some Western reporter would be talking about a terrorist attack. Here is the passage in full:

Samirah: “My dad may have power over me because he’s my dad. But he’s not the biggest power. Allahu akbar.”

I knew that term, but I’d never heard Sam use it before. I’ll admit it gave me an instinctive jolt in the gut. The news media loved to talk about how terrorists would say that right before they did something horrible and blew people up. I wasn’t going to mention that to Sam. I imagined she was painfully aware.

She couldn’t walk the streets of Boston in her hijab most days without somebody screaming at her to go home, and (if she was in a bad mood) she’d scream back, “I’m from Dorchester!”

“Yeah,” I said. “That means God is great, right?”

Sam shook her head. “That’s a slightly inaccurate translation. It means God is greater.”

“Than what?”

“Everything. The whole point of saying it is to remind yourself that God is greater than whatever you are facing—your fears, your problems, your thirst, your hunger, your anger.

337-338

To me, this is Samirah educating Magnus, and through him the readers, about what this phrase actually means and the religious significance it carries. I think the expression is beautiful and profound. However, like a lot of Americans, Magnus has grown up only hearing about it in a negative context from the news. For him to think: “I had never heard that phrase, and it carried absolutely no negative connotations!” would be silly and unrealistic. This is a teachable moment between two characters, two friends who respect each other despite how different they are. Magnus learns something beautiful and true about Samirah’s religion, and hopefully so do the readers. If that strikes you as Islamophobic in its full context, or if Samirah seems like a hurtful stereotype . . . all I can say is I strongly disagree.

I will give you some credit here in that I mostly agree with this scene. The phrase does carry negative connotations with many white people and I do not fault you for explaining it the way you did. However, don’t try to sneak in that last sentence like we won’t notice. You have no place to decide whether or not Samirah’s character as a whole is harmful and stereotypical. 

It is 2 am and that is all I have the willpower to address. This is messy and this is long and this is not well worded, but this had to be addressed. I do not speak for every muslim, both world wide and within this online community, but these were my raw reactions to his statement. I have been working on and will continue to work on a masterpost of Samirah Al-Abbas as I work through the books, but for now, let it be known that Riordan has bastardized my identity and continues to excuse himself and profit off of enforcing harmful stereotypes. Good night.

[qqueenofhades]

I really don’t want to start a discourse™, but I want you to know that I really appreciate how you write joe and Nicky in deo volente. So many of the fics I’ve read have placed yusef in the role of more sexually experienced and less devoted to god, while Nicky is depicted as an inexperienced and virginal priest/knight/monk and so forth and so on. Your narrative of joe out there rescuing people and being faithful, while Nicky looks back on his life of gambling and pleasures of the flesh ...(1/?)

Not to say that there’s anything wrong with either, obviously. I love guilty priest Nicky and repressed Nicky and p much every Nicky. But in the vast array of fics out there, it’s rare to see the opposite. Not that you’re working in a binary morally good/religious vs. not way. Your writing in the fic is really subtle and and your characterizations reveal a lot of depth. I just think it’s cool to see Nicky, average second son of a duke, drinking and gambling and feeling terribly guilty (2/?)

Guilty about the crusades and the fucking horror of crusade 1 without being excessively devout. Just an average dude. Not some paragon of virtue (btw, I’m on chapter 2 of the fic, so I don’t know how much your characterization changes moving forward. You have a lovely ability to combine your incredible knowledge of history, your beautiful writing, and these intimate details of the characters that make them fit— fit the canon and fit the history. (3/? Shit I’m sorry this had gotten way too long)

I enjoy the way you’ve really inserted us into the quotidian aspect of history. Aaaaaanyway— the discourse that I was afraid of: I think that a lot of fans of the movie that are generating fan content (tysfm to all of you beauties, btw 🙏🙏♥️) are westerners (which is a whole nother kettle of fish) and that carries a sort of ignorance about the Muslim world in the Middle Ages and this desire to simplify Europe as “Christian” “fighters for faith” etc. (4/? Fuuuuck. One(??) more)

And when we do that, we end up as characterizing the brown people as “not that”. The thing I love about this fandom is that people are definitely down on the crusades. I feel like all the fic I’ve read has been particularly negative about those wars, but the thing I love about your fic is that you don’t just say war is bad because people died and it was despicable and this pious white dude says so and this one brown person agrees. (5/6, I see the end in sight I swear it)

Instead you give us a larger cast of Muslims and Arabs and really flesh them out and give them opinions and different interpretations of faith, and I really appreciate that. The crusades were terrible, and we know this because these regular dudes who struggle with their different faiths and lives say so. And I just. I think that’s really great. Also, I fucking love yusef’s mom. I feel like more people would be accepting of the gift in this fashion and I think she’s lovely and (god damn it 6/7)

Aaaaaaaand. The bit where yusef returns and she’s already gone breaks my fucking heart. Also the moment where he’s like “I’m not sure about Abraham’s god, but my mothers god is worth my faith”?? Just really fucking great. So. Excellent fic. Excellent characters. Excellent not-being-accidentally-biased-towards-white-Christians. That is what I came here to say. Thank you so much for your amazing stories. I love them and I love history. Sorry about the rambling. idek how I wrote so much. (7/7)

Epilogue: tl;dr: you’re great.

Oh man! What a huge and thoughtful comment (which will in turn provoke a long-ass response from me, so…) I absolutely agree that no matter what fandom, I don’t do Discourse TM; I just sit in my bubble and stay in my lane and do my own thing and create content I enjoy. And I don’t even think this is that so much as just… general commentary on character and background? So obviously all of this should be read as my own personal experience and choices in writing DVLA, and that alone. I really appreciate you for saying that you love a wide range of fan creators/fanworks and you’re not placing one over another, you understand that fans have diverse ranges of backgrounds/experience with history and other cultures when they create content, and that’s not the same for everyone. So I just think that’s a great and respectful way to start things off.

First, as a professional historian who has written a literal PhD thesis on the crusades, I absolutely understand that many people (and regular fans) will not have the same privilege/education/perspective that I do, and that’s fine! They should not be expected to get multiple advanced degrees to enjoy a Netflix movie! But since I DO have that background, and since I’ve been working on the intellectual genealogy of the crusades (and the associated Christian/Muslim component, whether racially or religiously) since I was a master’s student, I have a lot of academic training and personal feelings that inform how I write these characters. Aside from my research on all this, my sister lives in an Islamic country and her boyfriend is a Muslim man; I’ve known a lot of Muslims and Middle Easterners; and especially with the current political climate of Islamophobia and the reckoning with racism whether in reality or fandom, I have been thinking about all this a lot, and my impact on such.

Basically: I love Nicky dearly, but I ADORE Joe, and as such, I’m protective of him and certainly very mindful of how I write him. Especially when the obvious default for westerners in general, fandom-related or otherwise, is to write what you are familiar with (i.e. the European Christian white character) and be either less comfortable or less confident or sometimes less thoughtful about his opposing number. I have at times tangentially stumbled across takes on Joe that turn me into the “eeeeeeeh” emoji or Dubious Chrissy Teigen, but I honestly couldn’t tell you anything else about them because I was like, “nope not for me” and went elsewhere rather than do Discourse (which is pretty much a waste of time everywhere and always makes people feel bad). This is why I’m always selective about my fan content, but especially so with this ship, because I have SO much field-specific knowledge that I just have to make what I like and which suits my personal tastes. So that is what I do.

Obviously, there’s a troublesome history with the trope of “sexually liberate brown person seduces virginal white character into a world of Fleshly Decadence,” whether from the medieval correlation of “sodomite” and “Saracen,” or the nineteenth-century Orientalist depictions of the East as a land variously childishly simplistic, societally backward, darkly mysterious and Exotic, or “decadent” (read: code for sexually unlike Western Europe, including the spectrum of queer acts). So when I was writing DVLA, I absolutely did not want to do that and it’s not to my taste, but I’m not going to whip out a red pen on someone else writing a story that broadly follows those parameters (because as I said, I stay in my lane and don’t see it anyway). Joe to me is just such an intensely complex and lovely Muslim character that that’s the only way I feel like I can honestly write him, and I absolutely love that about him. So yeah, any depiction of hypersexualizing him or making him only available for the sexual use and education of the white character(s) is just... mmm, not for me.

For example, I stressed over whether it was appropriate to move his origin from “somewhere in the Maghreb” to Cairo specifically, since Egypt, while it IS in North Africa, is not technically part of the Maghreb. I realize that Marwan Kenzari’s family is Tunisian and that’s probably why they chose it, to honor the actor’s heritage, but on the flip side… “al-Kaysani” is also a specifically Ismai’li Shia name (it’s the name of a branch of it) and the Fatimids (the ruling dynasty in Jerusalem at the time of the First Crusade) were well-known for being the only Ismai’li Shia caliphate. (This is why the Shi’ites still ancestrally dislike Saladin for overthrowing it in 1174, even if Saladin is a huge hero to the rest of the Islamic world.) Plus I really wanted to use medieval Cairo as Joe’s homeland, and it just made more sense for an Ismai’li Shia Fatimid from Cairo (i.e. the actual Muslim denomination and caliphate that controlled Jerusalem) to be defending the Holy City because it was personal for him, rather than a Sunni Zirid from Ifriqiya just kind of turning up there. Especially due to the intense fragmentation and disorganization in the Islamic world at the time of the First Crusade (which was a big part of the reason it succeeded) and since the Zirids were a breakaway group from the Fatimids and therefore not very likely to be militarily allied with them. As with my personal gripes about Nicky being a priest, I decided to make that change because I felt, as a historian, that it made more sense for the character. But I SUPER recognize it as my own choices and tweaks, and obviously I’m not about to complain at anyone for writing what’s in graphic novel/bonus content canon!

That ties, however, into the fact that Nicky has a clearly defined city/region of origin (Genoa, which has a distinct history, culture, and tradition of crusading) and Joe is just said to be from “the Maghreb” which…. is obviously huge. (I.e. anywhere in North Africa west of Egypt all the way to Morocco.) And this isn’t a fandom thing, but from the official creators/writers of the comics and the movie. And I’m over here like: okay, which country? Which city? Which denomination of Islam? You’ve given him a Shia name but then point him to an origin in Sunni Ifriqiya. If he’s from there, why has he gone thousands of miles to Jerusalem in the middle of a dangerous war to help his religious/political rivals defend their territory? Just because he’s nice? Because it was an accident? Why is his motivation or reason for being there any less defined or any less religious (inasmuch as DVLA Nicky’s motive for being on the First Crusade is religious at all, which is not very) than the white character’s? In a sense, the Christians are the ones who have to work a lot harder to justify their presence in the Middle East in the eleventh century at all: the First Crusade was a specifically military and offensive invasion launched at the direct behest of the leader of the Western Roman church (Pope Urban II.) So the idea that they’re “fighting for the faith” or defending it bravely is…

Eeeeh. (Insert Dubious Chrissy Teigen.)

But of course, nobody teaches medieval history to anyone in America (except for Bad Game of Thrones History Tee Em), and they sure as hell don’t teach about the crusades (except for the Religious Violence Bad highlight reel) so people don’t KNOW about these things, and I wish they DID know, and that’s why I’m over here trying to be an academic so I can help them LEARN it, and I get very passionate about it. So once again, I entirely don’t blame people who have acquired this distorted cultural impression of the crusades and don’t want to do a book’s worth of research to write a fic about a Netflix movie. I do hope that they take the initiative to learn more about it because they’re interested and want to know more, since by nature the pairing involves a lot of complex religious, racial, and cultural dynamics that need to be handled thoughtfully, even if you don’t know everything about it. So like, basically all I want is for the Muslim character(s) to be given the same level of respect, attention to detail, background story, family context, and religious diversity as any of the white characters, and Imma do it myself if I have to. Dammit.

(I’m really excited to hear your thoughts on the second half of the fic, especially chapter 3 and chapter 6, but definitely all of it, since I think the characters they’re established as in the early part of the fic do remain true to themselves and both grow and struggle and go through a realistic journey with their faith over their very long lives, and it’s one of my favorite themes about DVLA.)

Anyway, about Nicky. I also made the specific choice to have him be an average guy, the ordinary second son of a nobleman who doesn’t really know what he’s doing with his life and isn’t the mouthpiece of Moral Virtue in the story, since as he himself realizes pretty quick, the crusades and especially the sack/massacre of Jerusalem are actually horrific. I’ve written in various posts about my nitpicking gripes with him being a priest, so he’s not, and as I said, I’m definitely avoiding any scenario where he has to Learn About The World from Joe. That is because I want to make the point that the people on the crusades were people, and they went for a lot of different reasons, not all of which were intense personal religious belief. The crusades were an institution and operated institutionally. Even on the First Crusade, where there were a lot of ordinary people who went because of sincere religious belief, there was the usual bad behavior by soldiers and secular noblemen and people who just went because it was the thing to do. James Brundage has an article about prostitution and miscegenation and other sexual activity on the First Crusade; even at the height of this first and holy expedition, it was happening. So Nicky obviously isn’t going to be the moral exemplar because a) the crusades are horrific, he himself realizes that, and b) it’s just as historically accurate that he wouldn’t be anyway. Since the idea is that medieval crusaders were all just zealots and ergo Not Like Us is dangerous, I didn’t want to do that either. If we think they all went because they were all personally fervent Catholics and thus clearly we couldn’t do the same, then we miss a lot of our own behavior and our parallel (and troubling) decisions, and yeah.

As well, I made a deliberate choice to have Nicky’s kindness (which I LOVE about him, it’s one of my favorite things, god how refreshing to have that be one of the central tenets of a male warrior character) not to be something that was just… always there and he was Meek and Good because a priest or whatever else. Especially as I’ve gotten older and we’ve all been living through these ridiculous hellyears (2020 is the worst, but it’s all been general shit for a while), I’ve thought more and more about how kindness is an active CHOICE and it’s as transgressive as anything else you can do and a whole lot more brave than just cynicism and nihilism and despair. As you’ll see in the second half of the fic, Nicky (and Joe) have been through some truly devastating things and it might be understandable if they gave into despair, but they DON’T. They choose to continue to be good people and to try and to actively BE kind, rather than it being some passive default setting. They struggle with it and it’s raw and painful and they’re not always saints, but they always come down on the side of wanting to keep doing what they’re doing, and I… have feelings about that.

Anyway, this is already SUPER long, so I’ll call it quits for now. But thank you so much for this, because I love these characters and I love the story I created for them in DVLA, since all this is personal to me in a lot of ways, and I’m so glad you picked up on that.

[ryttu3k]

Had the Realisation that my oldest vampire character is literally only 41, so. Some actual older vampires! Below the cut - a thousand-year-old Banu Haqim nerd and a two-hundred-year-old Tzimisce who wants to be a cryptid.

Ezra ben Natan, 8th generation Banu Haqim (vizier caste)

Ezra was born in the tiny Jewish Quarter of Constantinople in 981, in a time where the Jewish population was beginning to come under pressure from both the Christian and Muslim communities. Within this instability, Ezra tried to keep up with the studies that fascinated them, eventually catching the eye of a visiting Banu Haqim vizier (a grandchilde of Tegyrius), who saw great potential for learning within the young Ezra. They were Embraced in 1006, initially refusing to return to Alamut with their sire in order to remain with their community. Eventually, their sire persuaded them to at least visit, and with some reluctance (albeit with the rapidly fraying stability of Michael the Patriarch as a fairly potent incentive to leave!), Ezra left their community in 1015.

They found they did actually fit in remarkably well in Alamut, meeting other Jewish Banu Haqim and embracing the Persian Jewish communities near the fortress, thriving amongst their fellow viziers and learning all they could, not only about the Banu Haqim but about the wider world amidst the Islamic Golden Age (while there were certainly Jewish-Islamic clashes outside of Alamut, within, they would largely consider themselves Banu Haqim first, Jewish or Muslim second). During their studies on the Baali Wars, they befriended many of the local Salubri, fascinated by their healing arts and admiring their political stance. They also became a follower of Derech Chaim, part of the Road of Heaven. When the Tremere began their persecution of the Salubri, they were appalled, and successfully petitioned for many of the local Salubri to be protected by groups of Banu Haqim warriors. This was not to last, although, for a time, they were still able to give some protection.

Following the violence of the Crusades and shortly after the condemnation of the Tremere blood curse after the Convention of Thorns and the Treaty of Tyre, Ezra, despairing at the state of their clan and the world, retreated into torpor for several centuries, eventually waking again in the early 19th century. Deciding to leave Alamut, they departed for London, a centre of great industry and change; there would be much to learn, especially everything they had missed over the past 300-odd years they had been in torpor for, and when they eventually paid a return visit to Alamut around the turn of the 20th century, they were granted the title of Distinguished Master (specialising in Jewish Banu Haqim history and with a secondary focus on the Baali Wars). They remained in England until the first World War, when they departed for the United States, settling in New York City, which was nominally Camarilla but never really siding one way or another with a specific sect and so making it relatively ideal for a member of an Independent clan to survive. Residing in Brooklyn, Ezra became the self-proclaimed protector of the Jewish community there, along with a handful of other Jewish Cainites from various clans, and were largely able to insulate them from the eventual Sabbat domination, the Battle of New York, and the Camarilla reclamation.

In modern nights, they have joined their great-grandsire Tegyrius and are nominally a part of the Camarilla (although they consider themself Jewish first, Banu Haqim second, Cainite third, and Camarilla fourth at best). Along with their studies of history and society, they have picked up an interest in technology and strive to keep up with it, and has also delighted in discovering the concept of being nonbinary, which has answered quite a few questions they've had regarding themself over the past millennium!

Personality: Studious and inquisitive, with a strong sense of duty and protection. A strong supporter of the concept of tikkun olam (lit. 'repair of the world'), which they interpret as a directive to protect and heal as much as possible, and they try to be compassionate in all they do. They do, however, have a dislike verging on hatred for the Tremere, not just for the injustices they've inflicted upon their own clan, but for their actions against the Salubri.

Disciplines: Auspex 5, Presence 3, Quietus (Minhit Dume/Hematus) 5, Obfuscate 4, Celerity 2. Possesses True Faith 1

-

Wish, 10th generation Tzimisce

Wish hails from Tennessee, born Louetta Patterson in the then-new town of Knoxville in 1804. Forever drawn to the Great Smoky Mountains, they spent a wild childhood roaming the forests and foothills, delighting in the freedom from being a girl, from being human, in the early nineteenth century. When their parents tried to reign in the borderline feral child by arranging a marriage between them and the older son of a neighbouring farmer (they were fifteen, he was in his late twenties), they ran, first to their beloved mountains, then further on, following the Appalachians all the way into Ohio, passing themself off as a boy named Louis. While trying to eke out a survival in Columbus, they had an encounter that would change - or rather end - their life, accepting an errand to deliver a parcel to a strange foreign gentleman, surprisingly late at night for visitors.

This gentleman was a Tzimisce, originally from Eastern Europe, now part of the growing Sabbat movement in America. Pleased by Wish's resourcefulness, independence, and curiosity, he offered them the opportunity to discover a newer, wilder facet to life, and Embraced them in 1822. This, frankly, suited Wish just fine, who had never really seen themself as much human anyway, and after a period of mentorship, they returned to the Great Smoky Mountains they so adored, changing their name to Wish proper (from the last syllable of ‘Louis’) and setting up their own little domain there. They wanted nothing to do with human wars and conflicts. They just wanted the mountains and the natural environment.

They didn't get many visitors. That was fine. They could pick up books and eventually records from Knoxville (carefully avoiding the presence of anyone they knew, or else using their new skill of Vicissitude to disguise themself), and eventually built up a largely underground haven in their beloved mountains. Originally satiating their thirst on animals and occasionally on humans during their odd trips to the city, the Appalachian Trail gave them not just a steady stream of hikers to take the odd slurp from, but also the attentions of arsonists and vandals, who... well, were generally not seen again. They also, quite regularly, feed on invasive boars, which compete with the native black bears; two birds (well, boars) with one stone!

In modern nights, they don't look much human any more, and there may be more than the usual number of cryptid sightings in their neck of the woods. They have, much to their dismay, been obligated to get involved with politics, and human politics, no less - learning how to send petitions and communicate with others online about the dangers of regional exploitation, to preserve the Appalachians they so love. More enjoyably, they've also taken correspondence courses on conservation, and are adept at using camera traps to record the wildlife of their domain, taking biodiversity surveys, and the like.

Personality: Introverted, generally pretty relaxed, happy for the odd visitor to show up so they can do the whole Hospitality thing but also, you know, very happy to send them away after three days. Doesn't see themself as human any more, and frankly hasn't since their mortal days; while some Tzimisce go for straight monstrosity, Wish prefers adding animal features, anything from a spectacular rack of antlers to shimmery cuttlefish chromatophores.

Considers themself a caretaker of the environment, and follows the Path of Harmony - the world is in constant flux, and the best way to adapt to it is to flux with it. Despite their Sabbat sire, pretty firmly Autarkis. Politics is for people more human than they are, frankly! Still speaks with a strong Tennessee drawl. Lover of music and words; if you happen to be in the mountains at night, hearing the sound of a record player or perhaps a fiddle, or spot someone lounging in a deck chair with a flashlight wedged in their antlers so they can read... yeah, probably them. Would much rather chill than argue; they get on well with the local Gangrel and even decently with the Fae and Garou, who recognise them as a part of the mountain community and not the larger Cainite society as a whole.

Fond of furries. They’re trying so hard, bless their li’l souls. Maybe they’d make good Tzimisce or Gangrel!

Disciplines: Auspex 4, Animalism 5 (has crow famalus named, uh, Crow because corvidae are smartasses and they respect that), Vicissitude 3, Potence 2 (very useful for, you know, catching invasive boars)

Posts that are straight-out Vibes: antlers, gender, music, that whole being nonbinary/neurodiverse/aspec and also enjoying nonhuman characters and themes while also not wanting to be a stereotype but at the same time the vibes are impeccable thing, a friend

[alatismeni-theitsa]

Hi, hope you’re well. I read this comment of yours and then kept wondering about my own beliefs. I have always seen similarities in myths and in gods and just assumed they were one in the same being (like Aphrodite and Freya, or the many flood myths). That’s not to say one culture is more right than the other, rather that they appeared or were interpreted in different ways by different cultures. I know this is bad from an academic standpoint, but is it bad coming from a religious one? Idk, what do you think?

Hey! Thanks for the question! Well, one person - me xD - couldn't say what is "right" from a religious standpoint but, since you asked, I'll tell you my thoughts. I am not a polytheist, but I will treat all the pantheons and religious stories as factual, so I can proceed with the arguments.

To begin with, you've probably read ancient texts and how ancient people saw each other's pantheons. They said something of the sort "these people have a god who does this and a god who does that" and they didn't see the other pantheons as a different expression of their own pantheon. If someone had a god of thunder they would go like "oh, we, too, have a god of thunder, but he is doing such and such and looks like this!" and they wouldn't say that they share the same god. (Unless they were right next to each other, then there might be a chance of them understanding they have "taken" the deity from their neighbor and changed a few things in their approach).

Not to mention that different pantheons protected different cultures, and people often claimed that their own war god will be victorious over the war god of the other culture. Gods themselves (including the god of the Bible) said they would crush the gods of enemy nations and rule over them. But that doesn't make sense if only one pantheon exists. You can't fight the metallurgy god of the enemy nation if he is actually the god from your own pantheon.

For me, those ancient accounts for the gods matter because religious experiences are the same no matter the era. A person 2.000 years ago had the same communication with Inanna as one can have today. If thousands of her worshipers saw her as a goddess separate from foreign goddesses who presided over similar matters, then they must have been guided to do so by the gods themselves or their religious community. And since the goddess communicates with the people the same way, why wouldn't the ancients' opinion about her be valid today?

Most nations indeed have the flood story, but I wouldn't equate that to similar gods. The flood probably happened historically (in a less dramatic way than the religious texts tell us) and that's why it has been imprinted on our memory globally. However, not all gods from all pantheons are global. I've heard that the Romans had a deity of door handles, and I am sure the ancient Greeks had mischievous deities specifically tasked to break pottery. So, does that mean that there is a deity in this world who takes care of door handles or loves breaking pottery but, for some reason, it has only visited one or two cultures?

On the flip side, why do some pantheons have hundreds of deities and others only a dozen? Did certain gods just… skip certain countries? And why in Hinduism a deity can have dozens of manifestations (almost like separate deities) but in religions like the ancient Greek one we don't see that? Yes, in Hellenic Polytheism (and in Greek Orthodoxy) you can worship the deity / saint with different epithets, depending on what power of them you want to invoke. But that's not the same as gods manifesting as different "personalities" with different symbols and another plethora of domains. In this example, I am led to believe the deities of those cultures aren't the same.

Some can also bring up religious syncretism as a reason for one global pantheon, although I don't think it has its basis on how similar the deities are. Hermes and Thoth have little in common and yet we have the deity Hermes-Thoth. Nevertheless, one cannot claim to know Thoth because they know Hermes and vice versa.

Even the Aphrodite of the Greek mainland is different from the Aphrodite of Cyprus and Cypriots notice that. Of course, because of the history of the area, it's easier to say they are linked. But, to use your example, we can't clearly see that Aphrodite and Freya are connected. As I said, I am not a polytheist, so for me, both Aphrodite and Freya are made up by humans. Therefore, it's possible one nation was influenced by the other on how a goddess of sex and war looks like. Yet, the goddesses are still quite unlike.

They have different sacred symbols, different rites that please them, different children, and different stories/lives. And we can't say those characteristics don't matter, because if they don't, why are we even having religions? What is a religion if its people are just making up stories on the go? Why do we even have theology and recorded accounts from prophets and priests? Were the ancient spiritual people mistaken? Weren't they guided by gods as modern people are?

We can't just say "Aphrodite and Freya are basically the same, but humans happened to make different stories for them". If those ancient polytheistic religions are real, then the divine inspiration and knowledge regarding the lives, children, and preferred symbols of the gods shouldn't be ignored.

I don't deny gods around the globe can have similarities, but that doesn't mean they are the same. Two siblings can have similar appearance and behavior, but they are not two expressions of the same person. They can stand on their own.

Something else that doesn't seem right to me is that, if the Father God is ONE, and only interpreted differently in different cultures, then Zeus and the God of the Bible are the same? Then Poseidon and St. Nicolas of Greek Orthodoxy are the same "sea energy"? Being immersed in the lives of the ancient gods and the more modern saints, I can say that their *~feels~* are very different.

And, if every deity is the same as the other, why should one even bother changing or leaving religions? If Poseidon is St. Nicolas why don't you just work with St. Nicolas? If the Divine Energy is one, why don't you just worship the one God of the Quran, who is almighty and presides over every domain? Even if you do the opposite and say “worshipping Aphrodite is the same as worshipping the Love aspect of Quranic concept of god” many Muslims – or anyone who knows the basics of Islam – will object to that.

Concluding, I don’t see how all the pantheons and gods from monotheistic religions are the same beings/being.

[wisdomrays]

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Did Prophet Muhammad Write the Qur'an?: Part 1

As this question has generated a great deal of literature, I shall confine my answer to the most pertinent points.

This allegation is made by Orientalists, just as it was by their predecessors: Christian and Jewish writers who deeply resented the spread of Islam. The first people to make it were the Prophet's own opponents, as we read in the Qur'an: Whenever Our signs are recited to them in a clear way, those who deny say concerning the truth, when it (the truth) comes to them: "This is plain magic." Or do they say: "He has forged it." (46:7–8). They were desperate to protect their interests against the rising tide of Islam and hoped, as do their modern counterparts, to spread doubt about the Qur'an's Divine authorship so that Muslims would start doubting its authority as well.

The Qur'an is unique among Scriptures in two respects, which even its detractors accept. First, the Qur'an exists in Arabic, its original language and one that is still widely spoken today. Second, its text is entirely reliable. It has not been altered, edited, or tampered with since it was revealed.

In contrast, Christianity's Gospels have not survived in their original language; the language of the earliest surviving version of these Scriptures is a dead language. In addition, and their texts have been shown to be the work of many people over generations, edited and re-edited, altered and interpolated, to promote sectarian interpretations. They have lost their authority as Scriptures, and serve primarily as a national or cultural mythology for groups whose remote ancestors created their particular versions. This is, more or less, the Western scholarly consensus on the status of these once-Divine Books.

For almost 200 years, Western scholars have subjected the Qur'an to the same rigorous scrutiny. However, they have failed to prove that it was subjected to a similar process. They discovered that Muslims, like Christians, sometimes split into disputing factions. But unlike Christians, all Muslim factions sought to justify their position by referring to the same Qur'an. Other versions of the Gospels might be discovered or uncovered. However, all Muslims know only one Qur'an, perfectly preserved in its original words since the Prophet's death, when Revelation ended.

Muslims also have a record of the Prophet's teaching in the Sunna, the record of how he implemented Islam in daily life. Many, but certainly not all, of the Prophet's actions and exact words are preserved in the hadith literature. These two sources could not be more dissimilar in quality of expression or content. All Arabs who heard the Prophet speak, regardless of religious affiliation, found his words to be concise, forceful, and persuasive, but nevertheless like their own normal usage. When they heard the Qur'an, however, they were overwhelmed by feelings of rapture, ecstasy, and awe. One senses in the hadith the presence of an individual addressing other people, a man pondering weighty questions who, when he speaks, does so with an appropriate gravity and in profound awe of the Divine Will. The Qur'an, on the other hand, is perceived immediately as imperative and sublime, having a transcendent, all-compelling majesty of style and content. It defies sense and reason to suppose that Qur'an and hadith have the same origin.

The Qur'an is absolutely different from any human product in the transcendence of its perspective and viewpoint. Occasionally in a few scattered phrases or passages of other Scriptures, readers or listeners may feel that they are in the presence of the Divine Message addressed to humanity. In the Qur'an, every syllable carries this impression of sublime intensity belonging to a message from One who is All-Knowing and All-Merciful.

Furthermore, the Qur'an cannot be contemplated at a distance, or discussed and debated in the abstract. It requires us to understand, act, and amend our lifestyles. It also enables us to do so, for it can touch us in the very depths of our being. It addresses us in our full reality as spiritually and physically competent beings, as creatures of the All-Merciful. It is not addressed to just one human faculty, such as philosophical reasoning, poetic or artistic sensibility, our ability to alter and manage our environment or political and legal affairs, our need for mutual compassion and forgiveness, or our spiritual craving for knowledge and consolation. The Qur'an also is directed to everyone, regardless of age, gender, race, location, or time.

This transcendence and fullness can be felt in every matter that the Qur'an mentions specifically. For example, caring for one's elderly parents is placed beside belief in God's Oneness, and providing decently for a divorced wife with reminders to be conscious of the All-Knowing and All-Seeing. While the reasoning behind such placement is God's alone, His believing servants know and can report its effect: It enables the inner self-reform that makes the steady, cheerful, and humble performance of virtuous actions possible. Thus, the one who does the deed does it gracefully, and its recipient is not oppressed or humiliated by it.

The Qur'an challenges its detractors to compose a chapter that can equal it. No one has successfully met this challenge. In fact, such an achievement is impossible, for only God can assume the Qur'an's all-transcendent and all-compassionate perspective. Our thoughts and aspirations are affected and conditioned by surrounding circumstances. That is why, sooner or later, all human works fail or fade away into obsolescence, and why they are too general to have any real influence or too specific to do much good beyond the specific area they address. Whatever we produce is of limited value for just these reasons. As stated in the Qur'an: Say: if all of humanity and the jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they backed each other with help and support (17:88).

The Qur'an is the Word of the All-Knowing and All-Seeing, who knows everything about His creation. It therefore comprehends and tests its audiences as it teaches. For believers, the consciousness of being before the Divine Message can make their skins shiver, in the words of the Qur'an, so suddenly and fully does the atmosphere around and within them change.

[keepyourpantsongohan]

Hinduism in Naruto: A Study

The world of Naruto is influenced by a number of different cultures, but the references I was most familiar with were those which related to Hinduism. So here is a breakdown of some of those connections, focusing on Otsutsuki clan. 

Ashura and Indra Otsutsuki

The words “As(h)ura” and “Indra” appear both in the Vedas, the earliest Hindu scriptures, and in Sanskrit epics of Ancient India depicting Hindu mythology, the Ramayana and Mahabharata. 

There are a number of ways to interpret Indra’s role in the Hindu pantheon, but I think it’s easiest to start with Indra in the Rig Veda (earliest of the Vedas). Indra can be understood as a deity who is “King of the Gods” in that text. An early description of Indra’s status: “Mighty is Indra, yea supreme; greatness be his, the Thunderer: Wide as the heaven extends his power.” (Rig Veda 1.8.5)

Trying to explain the meaning of Ashura in Hinduism is more complex; it is not a single deity but a descriptor. In Rig Veda, the word appears numerous times. In the earlier Books, or Mandalas, the connotations of Ashura are that of a powerful being/“god”/“lord.” By the later Books as well in other texts like the Mahabharata, the meaning has transformed to something closer to “demon.” 

Looking at Books 1-3 for the Rig Veda*, you can see the more positive connotation for Ashura, meaning “god/lord” associated with Savitr and Agni respectively (which I will touch more upon later). 

May he, gold-handed Asura, kind leader, come hither to us with his help and favour. (Rig Veda 1.35.10)

and

Giving delight each day he closeth not his eye, since from the Asura's body he was brought to life. (Rig Veda 3.29.14)

In any case, you can say this of Ashura in the Rig Veda: Indra is placed in a position signifying greatest strength, and Ashura’s position is either that of simply a benevolent lord/god, or later, something much lower status, as a mortal or demon, and aggressor to the gods. This power dynamic is maintained in Naruto, as stated in Chapter 670, when Ashura Otsutsuki is described as a “dunce” compared to the “exceptional” Indra Otsutsuki.

Embodying the conflict between Heavenly People (like Indra) and less divine enemies is this line in Book 10:

This prelude of my speech I now will utter, whereby we Gods may quell our Asura foemen. (Rig Veda 10.53.4)

Indeed, in Chapter 670, Indra Otsutsuki, god-like in power, does attempt to “quell his [Ashura] foeman.”

Notably, As(h)ura has its own distinct meanings in Islam (“tenth”) and Buddhism (“titan”/“demigod”), and Indra similarly has a place in Buddhist cosmology, with their own associated roles in each. However, in Buddhism, these references are often derived from the Vedic origins of its spiritual practice, so the Vedas and Sanskrit epics are still an excellent place to begin examining symbolism. 

Indra and the Uchiha Clan

In Naruto, Indra is the progenitor of the Uchiha clan, having the Sharingan, an ocular jutsu, and passing it on to his descendants (Naruto Chapter 681). Indra is described in the Rig Veda as follows: 

 “The singers' for their aid, invoke Indra and Vāyu, swift as mind, The thousand-eyed, the Lords of thought.” (Rig Veda 1.23.3)

The name Indra alludes to several common elements between the Rig Veda and the Uchiha clan as depicted in Naruto: eyesight, might, and dominion over battle. For a more specific reference to Naruto, you can look to Chapter 670, when Hagoromo explains the differences between his sons. 

Parallels with Indra in the Rig Veda and the Uchiha clan can be found even earlier than the above chapters. Looking to the subject of the power found in emotions:

“The choirs have stablished Indra King for ever, for victory, him whose anger is resistless: And, for the Bays' Lord, strengthened those he loveth.” (Rig Veda 7.31.12)

These lines in Book 7 describing Indra strongly parallel Tobirama’s description of the Uchiha in Chapter 619 of Naruto, a person being strengthened by love by and overpowered by the force of their own emotion (the Curse of Hatred). 

Indra and Sasuke

In Naruto, Sasuke is Indra’s reincarnate (seen below in Naruto Chapter 671). As an Uchiha, both the Sharingan and Curse of Hatred parallels apply to him. But he’s got his own unique connections to Indra in the Rig Veda as well. 

In the Naruto anime, Indra is seen using lightning release (Naruto Shippuden Episode 465), which is one of Sasuke’s two chakra natures**, and the one he uses most often. 

While it’s likely that the animation studio wished to make Indra and Ashura’s powers parallel the established powers of Naruto and Sasuke, the fact that Indra has lightning release in the anime makes a lot of sense, as the Rig Veda consistently describes Indra as wielding thunder and lightning. 

“Even the Heaven and Earth bow down before him, before his very breath the mountains tremble. Known as the Soma-drinker, armed with thunder, who wields the bolt, He, O ye men, is Indra.” (Rig Veda 2.12.13)

Like Sasuke’s lightning release exists in duality with his fire release, Indra also exists in duality with Agni, the fire deity. In Book 10, Indra is described as Agni’s twin, born from the mouth of the Creator, just as the Uchiha emit their Great Fireball Technique from their mouths, i.e. “Indra and Agni from his mouth were born.” (Rig Veda 10.90.13)

Naruto and Ashura

Where Sasuke is associated with Indra through the elements, Naruto shares a specific symbol that is associated with Asura as well: The sun. Savitr is a solar deity, referred to as an Asura in Book 1 of the Rig Veda:

“He, strong of wing, hath lightened up the regions, deep-quivering Asura, the gentle Leader.” (Rig Veda 1.35.7)

While Naruto, after receiving the Sage of Six Paths power, is marked with a symbol for the sun on his hand (seen in Chapter 672). 

Savitr is not the only deity to be referred to as an Ashura in the Rig Veda; Indra himself is even described as an Ashura. However, Ashura being associated with sun-like qualities is a recurring theme within the earlier books in the Rig Veda. Ashura is also brought up in the context of Agni, who himself has solar properties and is throughout the Rig Veda also compared to the sun. In fact, the word Ashura only comes up for Agni in the context of the sun. One quote specifically makes the comparison in Agni (the Ashura)’s strength to Indra’s. Found in Book 7:

“PRAISE of the Asura, high imperial Ruler, the Manly One in whom the folk shall triumph- I laud his deeds who is as strong as Indra, and lauding celebrate the Fort-destroyer.” (Rig Veda 7.6.1)

This connection to the sun is maintained throughout these early Hindu scriptures.

It is also worth noting “In who the folk shall triumph” as a parallel to the way Ashura Otsutsuki/the Senju/Naruto, as all of these parties find their strength in cooperating others, and vice versa became their people’s source of strength/hope. This is shown in Chapter 670 when Hagoromo describes Ashura’s power awakening. 

How “In who the folk shall triumph” applies to Naruto is made obvious in the next chapter (Chapter 671) when Naruto talks about his “comrades,” and its application to the Senju is referenced in Chapter 619 i.e. “The Senju clan, who based their strength in love [..]” Strength through loved ones is a recurring theme on both sides of the Otsutsuki brothers, and as well in both aspects of the Rig Veda. 

These are certainly not the only parts of the Naruto franchise in which you can see links to Hinduism. But in Indra and Ashura you can find the more prominent and distinct parallels. 

Notes

*The translation I used is The Rig Veda by Ralph T. H. Griffith, published in 1896. There are better translations that have been published in more modern times, but this one is easy to navigate and link to for sources. Each of those quotes contains a link to the translated hymn. 

(Also, as an academic side-note, the concept of “Hinduism” as a religion did not exist at the time the Vedas were written, but rather is retroactively applied after the amalgamation of various Vedic belief systems in the Indian subcontinent in the 18th century. For a more complex overview, refer to this article. The point being, calling all of this “Hinduism” is the simple version.) 

**Chakra is also a concept which is rooted in the Vedas, however, given the elemental nature of chakra in Naruto, and its five-fold varieties, it seems far more likely that it was derived from looking at Tibetan or Tantric Buddhism, so its Hindu origins are a footnote here. 

[mandarinastronaut]

different anon but i was wondering if you could go further into why you think boreo stay together and what the romantic moment at the apartment in antwerp was? ive finished the book and while i personally like to think they stay together ive always struggled to find any evidence that they do.

First I have to say that the ending, in my opinion, is poorly written. It feels like an afterthought, and the disconnect from Theo makes you feel he’s no longer the one talking to you, but Tartt herself is. It’s rambly, confusing, and messy. It’s the part of the book that made me feel unsure as to what Tratt’s intent with boreo was, if it was only queerbait, or if she left it up for interpretation merely because she didn’t want the controversies of having an explicitly queer book. Either way, Boris is almost completely forgotten, and so is his and Theo’s relationship. 

That being said, you could interpret that it’s Theo’s fault, rather than Tartt’s. He doesn’t want the reader to know what happened after Antwerp, so he just leaves it, leaves Boris, out. After all, he is still the same extremely unreliable and messy narrator we’ve grown to love since the very first pages of the novel. 

Theo tells us very little, and very briefly, about his time in Antwerp. This is suspicious because he and Boris must’ve shared some important moments there, since this is straight after Amsterdam and also the last time Boris is mentioned. It’s very obvious that he doesn’t want us to know what happened there. But luckily we can make an educated guess.

Tartt relies very heavily on symbolism in her work, and this book is no exception. Drugs are probably the main tool she uses in tgf, besides the painting. Boris, for example, symbolizes everything Theo thinks, or is supposed to think, is bad and unhealthy. He symbolizes drugs, criminality, wildness, freedom, queerness, vulnerability, and so on. So let’s analyze the Antwerp scene.

“Do you ever think about quitting? I asked, during the boring part of It’s a Wonderful Life, the moonlight walk with Donna Reed, when I was in Antwerp watching Boris with spoon and water from an eyedropper, mixing himself what he called a ‘pop’. 

Give me a break! My arm hurts!…”

“…Well, big stigma and fear, I understand. Me–honest, I prefer to sniff most times–clubs, restaurants, out and about, quicker and easier just to duck in men’s room and do a quick bump. This way–you always crave it. On my death bed I will crave it. Better never to pick it up. Although–really very irritating to see some bonehead sitting there smoking out of a crack pipe and make some pronouncement of how dirty and unsafe, they would never use a needle, you know? Like they are so much more sensible than you? 

Why did you start?

Why does anyone? My girl left me! Girl at the time. Wanted to be all bad and self-destructive, hah. Got my wish.

Jimmy Stewart in his varity sweater. Silvery moon, quavery voices. Buffalo Gals won’t you come out tonight, come out tonight.

So, why not stop then? I said.

Why should I?

Do I really have to say why?

Yeah, but what if I don’t feel like it?

If you can stop, why wouldn’t you?

Live by the sword, die by the sword, said Boris briskly, hitting the putton on his very professional-looking medical tourniquet with his chin as he was pushing up his sleeve. 

And as terrible it is, I get it. We can’t choose what we want and don’t want and that’s the hard lonely truth. Sometimes we want what we want even though we know it’s going to kill us. We can’t escape who we are…” (862-863)

a lot to unpack there oh boy

Boris is injecting himself with heroin. It’s one of the most amazing sensory pleasures one could experience, and it’s often compared to sensual pleasures; orgasms. He says he’ll crave it on his death bed. This very brief moment they share is intimate, and isn’t completely what it seems to be on the surface. Yes, they are talking about literal drugs and addiction, but they’re also addressing the feelings they have for each other–Boris will crave the sexual feelings he has for Theo, but also the strong emotional bond they share (love), and ultimately, Theo as a whole. 

Boris says he began because a girl left him, and if I remember correctly, this was after Theo left Vegas (I’m pretty sure I’m correct, bc I really don’t remember Boris doing it back then, but correct me if I’m wrong). Theo left him completely and utterly alone, and that’s when he started. The timeline matches, so it’s plausible, if not likely.

Boris explains he doesn’t want to stop. So what if it’s bad? So what if it’s a sin? So what if it’ll kill me? In the words of Achilles (from The Song of Achilles) I wouldn’t stop. And Theo says he understands. He says two very suggestive and convenient lines; we can’t choose what we want, we can’t escape who we are. I’m sure I don’t even have to breakdown the subtextual meaning behind that, it’s so blatant.

And this whole conversation’s happening while the famously acclaimed romantic scene from It’s a Wonderful Life plays in the background. Tartt deliberately chose a cinematic masterpiece of a romance scene for this conversation. And if that doesn’t create enough of a romantic atmosphere for the scene, this does. You see, the moon is an occurring symbolic tool in tgf. Theo’s mother told him to look up at the moon when he felt homesick, Boris is quite literally the moon as his Islamic name Badr means moon, and at one point Theo asks Boris if the moon looks the same everywhere, to which Boris of course replies yes you fucking idiot. So adding this very specific movie sequence where James Stewart promises to lasso the moon for Mary, is not a coincidence. @zombiebowlcut has a separate post regarding this, so here’s that!

Theo’s final monologue is about having a heart that cannot be trusted, about wanting things you shouldn’t want, not having the yearning to conform to conventional social constructs, not getting to choose your own heart, not getting to choose the person you are, and finally about how to confront this, if you should stuff your ears with wax like Kitsey, or if you should embrace it like Boris, throw yourself headfirst and laughing into the holy rage calling your name; if you should live inauthentically or authentically. And Theo chooses the latter. He’s done with crime, since he’s finally unchained from the painting. He’s buying back the fake antiques, and he’s not getting married to Kitsey. The only thing missing from Theo’s truth is his sexuality, and furthermore Boris. And that, is why I believe you can interpret they end up together in the end.

[scythian-andromache]

Now try to imagine Nile sneaking out Sunday mornings to go to church, Nicky catches on, joins her, and remembers why he joined the church in the first place. It's a liberal church, pro-gay rights, volunteers a lot in the community, and their youth group does outings with youth groups from other religions. Inspired, Joe starts returning to his own religion, and Andy scoffs at everyone until one day she starts doing some sort of prayer from the religion that she practiced before she was immortal.

Hmm. You know, as a pretty areligious person myself, I might not be the best person to answer this ask. But I'm going to try and process my thoughts, with the disclaimer that you should take everything I say with a grain of salt. (Note! I grew up in a culturally Christian society, which means that my lens is influenced by the broadly Christian paradigm, whether or not I practice a religion.) 

*** 

The idea of Nile holding on to this part of her identity is beautiful; that the faith she grew up in can still provide a touchstone to her sense of self and ground her—it's one of the main things religion is meant to do, isn't it? I like the idea of Nicky being the one to catch on, because Andy, for example, has been immortal so long that she forgets what believing in gods is like. 

I have a little bit of trouble with one part of this posited scenario, and that's the progression/characterization of Nicky's involvement, specifically that he sees a very inclusive, open church and "remembers why he joined the church in the first place", because that...is not my take on any of what Nick's first religious experiences were like. 

(I want to be clear here, since religion is a touchy subject for some—and I don’t want to offend you, anon; I really hope I’m not—that this could be my own misunderstanding based on wording, and that I'm always happy to have a dialogue about religious interpretations that don't coincide with my own.) 

I personally don't think going to that sort of church with Nile would inspire a longing in Nicky for his original church order, or to be frank, if anything would. There might be some nostalgia tied up in the prayers or the songs or community beyond the Old Guard, but I think it's important to remember Nicky's words: 

 "The love of my life was of the people I'd been taught to hate." 

Now, I'm not saying that religion was the only driving force in the "taught to hate" comment (humans have a long history of finding all sorts of reasons to hate each other), but it surely contributed to the Othering of Joe and the Caliphate forces/civilians—because we know Nicky was part of the Crusades, which, essentialized to their bare bones, were religious wars to recover the Holy Land from Islamic rule. It's religious fission and intolerance at its most explicit. 

I think it's entirely probable that Nicky's original brand of Christianity was not something he would want to return to, or even remember with any distinct fondness, because it was intolerant and unyielding. The "reasons he joined" were likely because of all the terrible things he'd been taught, indoctrinated to the idea that the Crusades were a Divine And Moral Conquest, and because of this, it becomes hard to separate the religion (its teachings and its values, the good to be had) with how it was practiced, specifically the things done in its name (atrocities, to put it mildly). 

(Note: That's not to say that I'm suggesting Nicky split entirely with his faith, but I think it complicates matters quite a lot.) 

I think it's more likely that this church of Nile's provides a wonderful foil for his own experience. If anything, I think he might be glad for the marked difference that he immediately sees, glad that the church looks nothing like his own, and might finally get why people are still actively practicing, if there are communities like this, accepting and inclusive and still rooted in the notion of something Greater. In faith of something you can't see. In this intangible purpose and meaning that religion can bestow—something that might appeal to him, especially given the implications of such a long life, where it's sometimes hard to see a greater plan or path or meaning. (We see this, explicitly, in Andy's frustration at the beginning.) In the sort of comfort all of that must provide. Nicky sees this vast contrast, and after hundreds of years, kind of starts to get it again. 

So the short answer, after all that, is that yes, we largely agree on potential headcanon premise; I can see Nile's faith reconnecting Nicky with his own, even though I took myself on a long winded semantics-based tangent in the interim because I'm Extra Like That™. 

As an addendum, I think the concept of the Immortals rediscovering their own relationships with their religions—not necessarily practicing outright, but interrogating what has changed for them and what has stayed the same given their own unique contexts, and ways that the teachings play into their philosophy, whether or not god(s) does—is a beautiful one. 

***

[basicsofislam]

ISLAM 101: 5 PILLARS OF ISLAM: ALMS AND CHARITY: FIQH OF ZAKAT IN DETAIL:

RECIPIENTS OF ZAKAT: (Part 2)

MUALLAFA AL-QULUB (THOSE WHOSE HEARTS ARE TO BE RECONCILED WITH ISLAM)

Another group deserving zakat are those whose hearts are on the grip of reconciliation with Islam. Depending on the intention of the various approaches, this group can be classified as follows:

Those who, although Muslim, do not yet have faith entrenched in their hearts.

Those non-Muslims whose hearts are attempted to be reconciled with Islam.

Those non-Muslims who harbour hostilities towards Islam, but whose aggression or resentment may be preventable.

The Prophet (upon whom be peace) indeed allotted zakat for all of the people in the above categories. As for the likes of Abu Sufyan, who had become Muslim but was yet to develop maturity in his belief, the Messenger ultimately won his heart—and countless others—by virtue of grantingzakat copiously, a practice of generosity which effectively established a positive belief in the hearts of the recipients. Abu Sufyan, once he became a Muslim, fervently desired to join his son, Iqrimah, at the fierce Battle of Yarmuk during the time of Caliph Umar—his courageous aspirations affirming a deeply ensconced faith whose seeds were initially sewn with the gift of such benevolence.

When the Messenger of God gave 100 sheep to Safwan ibn Umayya, he accepted Islam with an ardor worth the expense of perhaps 10,000 sheep, and this offering simultaneously hastened his realization of a great and precious degree of faith, as verified by his subsequent words; “Out of all men, the Prophet was the one I was most infuriated with. On the day of Hunayn, however, he gave so much that he suddenly became my most beloved.”8 The recipients were so much touched by the kindness and generosity of the Prophet and came to the understanding that he was divinely led. They soon joined him and their lasting faith soon made them exemplary figures in the service of God. Another group consisted of some Bedouins who had given in to Islam, although a pure iman (faith) had not yet sunk into their hearts. To state it more explicitly in Qur’anic terms, they were saying, “we believe,” although they had only surrendered: The Bedouins say “We believe.” Say: “You do not; rather say ‘we profess Islam,’ for faith has not yet entered your hearts” (Hujurat 49:14).

This reference clearly accentuates the fact that iman, belief in God, is a divine gift, attained only through man’s investigation, identification and application of his belief in the inextinguishable Celestial Flame. As far as the Bedouins were concerned, they had only resigned themselves to the splendor of Islam, as their hearts were not mature enough then to fully come to grips with faith. Thus the Messenger of God was prudently allocating a share of zakat for them, in hope of decreasing their distance to the ideal faith. When Safwan ibn Umayya was given 100 sheep and 100 camels, for instance, he exclaimed to those around him, “By God! Hasten to submit to this man, for he has no fear of his wealth running out,”9 acknowledging the Prophet’s dependence on God, Whose treasures never cease. By receiving zakat, those on the border between belief and non-belief swiftly had their pendulum swung towards the most excellent direction, commencing to quench their hearts with the satiating fountain of faith.

Yet another group were the vanguards of polytheists reputed with sordid behaviors. Through offering these people zakat, the Messenger of God was effectively repelling their potential for harming the community, as well as laying the groundwork for their future acceptance of Islam. This is exemplified by the saying, “Do good t o whom you fear evil from.” It is an important strategy to predict probable harm and deflect it with good, as man is inherently a servant of goodness. Such an approach, time and again, disperses possible damage and destruction before it even begins to form and creates a fresh breathing space for Muslims, whereby accumulated wealth is utilized to convert evil into good, as man earnestly acts upon the obligations of his servanthood to God.

In the words of the Qur’an, “Vile women are for vile men, and vile men are for vile women” (Nur 24:26). Evidently, by virtue of integrating thesemuallafa al-qulub into the picture, the Messenger of God instigated a series of multi-faceted benefits. Through receiving zakat, these people providentially gained profoundness in their faith; those oscillating between belief and unbelief opted for the former; and the leaders among the unbelievers, influenced by the generous grant, laid down their guns, providing amnesty for Muslims living under their control. The issue additionally has a financial component. Although the Prophet granted wealth to the leaders of the community, this act of giving entailed returns of abundant proportions. Because they enjoyed the benefits of receiving zakat, unbelievers granted certain essential permissions and rights to the Muslims under their control, who were then better able to offer zakat themselves; thus, the relatively trivial amount given to the leaders afforded large populations of Muslims the means by which they could honor their obligation to give zakat flowing into the pockets of the destitute. By this means, Muslims still managed to guarantee the general welfare of any community of which they were a part. In addition, the practice proved to be advantageous for the Muslims in more ways: it gave them the opportunity of fulfilling their obligations as well as bestowing on them relative freedom and autonomy, in addition to enshrining basic values of righteousness in the name of Islam in whatever community, and whatever time, Muslims happened to be.

This situation lasted until the period of Caliph Abu Bakr. One day, certain people who used to receive a share of zakat at the time of the Prophet came to the Caliph asking for money. The Caliph consented to signing their document of eligibility, which they took to Umar, who was in charge of the treasury on that day. Who knows—perhaps Abu Bakr, an exemplary character filled with astounding mildness and compassion, simply wished to solve the matter without causing even the scantiest dissension within the caliphate. So he deferred the matter to Umar.

After receiving the document, Umar’s sharp gaze oscillated between the document and those who had brought it. Though it is impossible to illustrate exactly what went through his mind in that instant, looking at the ensuing events, it seems most likely that Umar ascertained that Islam had now fully realized its splendor and unbelief had been dashed against the rocks. In effect, Islam, increasingly consolidating its eternal impressions on the world, was now standing on its own two feet.

As Umar also knew very well, zakat depended on specific circumstances, namely the existence of a given situation and people who fit the criteria of “need” under such circumstances. Umar, evidently and rightly content that the Arabian Peninsula was now the strong domain of Islam, tore the document and responded to the letter-holders by saying, “This is unacceptable. Go and work! In the days when you were given zakat, Islam was not standing on its own feet; but now, it is majestic and has no need of you!” As the Muslim community was firmly established, such a group of potential tormentors failed to meet the definition of a group whose hostilities to be prevented. Thus, it was no longer a necessity to pay zakat to those holding a sort of position of power.

Facing an unexpected situation, they promptly went to the Caliph, protesting, “Who is the Caliph, you or him? You sign the document and he tears it!” Abu Bakr simply replied, “If he liked, he would have been the Caliph,” delivering a deeply meaningful and concise response to a group who had made a habit of freeloading.

Consequentially, the practice of giving zakat to the muallafa al-qulub, ended by the matchless vision and intelligence of Umar, has since provided material for diverse interpretations. The truth is, the Companions, gathered soon after the event, reaching a consensus that a share no longer needed to be allotted to those whose hearts are attempted to be reconciled with Islam, owing to the simple fact that the need no longer existed. However, this was the reflection of the social structure in relation to that particular verdict, as the need to appease others in this way had apparently ceased.

Some have interpreted the above event as an abrogation or naskh of a verse by the ijma (consensus) of the Companions, which can only be labeled as a blatant misunderstanding. Although the abrogation of one verse by another, or a sunna act by another, is acceptable, the abrogation of a sunna act by a Qur’anic verse, or even vice-versa, has been an issue of dispute, where most scholars have maintained implausibility of either. Thus, even the Prophet’s words have no authority over the Qur’an, and it is thus utterly unthinkable for the Companions’ consensus to presume or exercise a similar authority. As a result, the Qur’an cannot be abrogated by methods of deduction such as ijma (consensus) or qiyas (analogy).

Debates as such reveal a lack of understanding of the intent of this decision. When arriving at their verdict, none of the Companions—including Abu Bakr or Umar—carried even the slightest desire to abrogate the Qur’an; rather, their verdict was simply an end shot of sincere and proper brainstorming, a discussion, such of which is strongly encouraged in Islam. It is worthy to note that among the eight groups of recipients, themuallafa al-qulub have no particular prerequisites; hence, whatever is applicable to them is also applicable for the other groups. In a society where the poor and the destitute cease to exist, for instance, the need to give these two groups zakat concomitantly ceases, as was the case during the era of Umar ibn Abdulaziz. During that time, nobody dared to claim, “Umar ibn Abdulaziz abrogated the Qur’an,” precisely because the events were unfolding exactly in concordance with the Prophet’s (upon whom be peace) glad tidings of many years before.

So, too, the issue of muallafa al-qulub, had unfolded along a natural course. As is the case today, however, many refer to Umar’s mentioned application when discussing those individuals a n d groups in various societies today who may nurture the intention of antagonizing the precepts of Islam. In fact, the new outcrop of such antagonists is entirely analogous to how the poor—who became increasingly hard to find during the caliphate of Umar ibn Abdulaziz — reemerged after the time of Umar ibn Abdulaziz. There were increases in debtors and even stranded traveler for that matter, individuals who only receive zakat provided that they exist. Therefore, those who claim that Umar abrogated a verse actually lack an adequate insight into the issue. Looking from the perspective of the Qur’an, the duty of zakat is not attached to certain individuals; rather, it is attached to certain needs, in so far as these reflected weaknesses of heart. Once these needs are taken care of, then these needs obviously no longer exist. Logically put: the attachment of the verdict to a certain cause necessitates the existence of that cause for its validity; therefore, the solution is pre-empted if the cause disappears, and then simply comes back into effect upon the future re-emergence of the need. Umar’s verdict was clearly an appropriate jurisprudential response to the changing times and a further reflection of the comprehensive and vibrant nature of the Qur’anic message, which remains vital and eminently applicable under the most extensive variations in both temporal and physical circumstances.

The reason for the extended discussion of this issue is to emphasize the necessity of reviving this practice as a contingency given the current need which is arising in societies around the globe, and most particularly in the secular west. In this day and age, in fact, we suddenly find ourselves readily able to identify a great many people who can easily fit into the category of muallafa al-qulub. If we can successfully revive the practice of giving generously of zakat to mollify potential aggressors and avoid potential hostilities, then we may perhaps appease volatile characters, effectively providing them the priceless opportunity to gain acquaintance with Islam—and thus allow Muslims all over the world greater freedom and safety to express the full dimensions of their faith. Moreover, by exercising an important point of jurisprudence in recognizing the existence of muallafa al-qulub in the present day, our aim to spread the Islamic message to the four corners of the world, to invite to Islam as we are strongly ordained to do, will be facilitated by the effective removal of possible impediments, personal or governmental, that stand in our way. This is an excellent opportunity, in fact, for so-called “modern man” to accomplish superb feats to inject the Islamic spirit into thirsty hearts. The view of Imam Qurtubi, a scholar of the Maliki school, concords: “At other times, those who are bordered by non- believers should also offer this fund lest they transgress the border,” This critical idea certainly deserves a special emphasis as the optimal framework for a contemporary approach to the full and peaceful existence of practicing Muslims in predominantly non-Muslim regions of the world.

As for today, there are many distinguished people, in educational, political, or socio-cultural arenas, who daily face the invitation to become the mouthpiece of others. The proper application of zakat under such circumstances, in line with the argument presented above, would ensure that their invaluable energies and capabilities do not become channeled towards causes devoid of scruples and deterring from righteousness, oppressing those who choose to practice their faith, both privately and publicly. For tragically, while these individuals generally set out to serve humanity and uphold virtue, they all-too-often become mere representatives of detrimental factions.

This approach would simply be an expression of familiarity with the true intent of the consensus of the great Companions on this subject, as well as with the Qur’an. For resuscitating the practice of giving zakat to the muallafa al-qulub would only lead us in the footsteps of Umar, who demonstrated so unequivocally the vibrant and effective nature of Islamic jurisprudence.

SLAVES

Slaves constitute one of the eight possible groups of recipients. As a basic principle, Islam is against the notion of slavery, desiring human to be liberated from all kinds of restraints through an assertion that their servanthood is only to God. The principles Islam has put forth have constantly paved the way for freedom, a value confirmed by many hadith concerning slaves, as the following exemplifies: “Feed them what you feed yourselves, clothe them what you clothe yourselves, do not impose on them duties they cannot bear, and treat them humanely.”10

The world, however, has never been home only to Muslims. At various stages of history, wars have been waged against those attempting to extinguish the light of Islam, and as an upshot and a primarily reciprocal procedure, there were many captives taken. This was really the prevalent practice of the warfare of the period, one equally upheld and perpetrated by all sides. Suddenly eliminating slavery on a global scale would involve innumerable intricacies and countless reforms; the best thing to do, insofar as Islam was concerned, was to treat captives with utmost kindness and consideration, in order to use the times of captivity as an opportunity not to exploit other human beings, but to warm hearts towards Islam.

Accordingly, and due to many benefits, a certain share of zakat was allocated to slaves and those in captivity. It will be of further benefit to lay special emphasis on the fact that slavery is not an institution inaugurated by Islam; in addition, from a global historical perspective, the birth of Islam coincided with a period wherein humans were sold as slaves and even free men were under the constant threat of enslavement as a result of sudden raids. Islam, always and ever a religion of pragmatic, applicable, and comprehensive solutions, resorted to combating this problem gradually, imposing at every chance the very principles which would bestow first inner, then outer, freedom to slaves. This is certainly in keeping with one of the most basic tenets of Islam, which is that everyone is as equal as the spikes on a comb and the only superiority which should be sought is in terms of piety.11 Here, then, are some of the key principles relating to slavery:

The emancipation of slaves in return for some work or their value (muqataba),

Emancipation by giving birth to the owner’s child (ummu walad),

Emancipating a slave to compensate for an unobserved vow,

Emancipating a slave as compensation for zihar (the forbidden practice whereby a husband draws a resemblance between his wife and his mother as a pretext for divorce), Emancipating a slave as compensation for unintentionally causing death.

Visibly and unequivocally, Islam opened the doors to freedom wide open, constantly reiterating the multitudes of rewards entailed by the act of emancipating a slave, an act incessantly encouraged by God. Today, slavery in its full sense of the term does not exist although this is not to say that it will never come back into existence. Similar to the cause of muallafa al-qulub, and applying the same standard of jurisprudence, the reemergence of slavery would automatically resuscitate the practice of offering them zakat. Perhaps in this day and age, the issue may have switched to another level, or another forum. Even though physical slavery may have become obsolete, ma ny people now have their feelings, thoughts and intellects enslaved, and thus are in dire need of genuine emancipation. Providing them some zakat would presumably be a means of dispersing from their minds these ill thoughts, beneficially opening their mind to the reality of a relationship with their Creator.

[sparksinthenight]

Hi followers just so y’all know I worship Loki and if anyone has a problem with that you are cordially invited to leave.  As someone who worships Loki I am required to respect, love, and uplift everything that other people feel called to worship, and support them in their own religions. Every person has equal rights to find divinity in the way they specifically need to as long as they don’t deny others any human rights. 

The point of life is love, equality, true freedom, peace, harmony, and helping each other as much as we can. Pretty much every religion says this, including a lot of  religions people call fake. Everyone needs and deserves to be the religion that they feel like they belong in. Everyone has somewhat different spiritual needs because we have different life situations and personalities and whatnot. People need to be where they feel free, feel loved, feel at home. I haven’t denied you or anyone else your spiritual home so please do me a favour and don’t deny me mine.  I’m not saying that I feel oppressed as a Loki worshipper. I actually don’t. Besides other Heathens, nobody even knows we exist so they don’t even come after us. 

A guy did leave a weird-ass Halloween decoration of a skeleton with its mouth ripped off near the entrance to my house like the day after I got back from a protest for Indigenous rights which got stalked by nazis so that whole thing is a bit scary but that has NOTHING to do with what spirituality I am. 

But anyways I don’t even feel oppressed. 

I do however know that most people don’t trust any “weird new-age shit.” And some of that mistrust is deserved, a lot of us are fucking dicks and we culturally appropriate. But painting an entire fucking group in a certain light because of the actions of some people is not something you should do. If you prefer older things that’s fine. If you’re new-wave but RESPECTFUL of what came before you that’s fine, at least it really should be. 

We are trying to be better, kinder, more humble, braver, less hurtful, less decadent people. We are trying to live lives based on respecting people and nature. And we rely on different ways of doing that. I don’t know why there has to be so much drama surrounding the whole thing of spirituality. 

Like yeah, sure everyone gets it wrong sometimes we’re all human. Yeah, sure, non-traditional people interpret their religions wrong and stupidly sometimes.  But so do Christians. Like, remember the Spanish Inquisition? That was some absolutely bullshit that came from human misinterpretation but it’s not like we cancelled Christianity itself after that and it’s not like we should.  And what about ISIS? Those people exist and are terrible and they misinterpreted Islam horribly but it’s not like we should cancel Islam. 

A lot of the bullshit happening against the Rohingya people have been excused by people in Myanmar using a horrible interpretation of Buddhism but it’s not like Buddhism itself is bad.  Every society ever has misinterpreted religion to support patriarchy and that does not mean any of those many religions are bad. 

Every religion has it’s bad people who use the religion for bad things.

Us Heathens have a Nazi problem. One which many of us are actively trying to solve, by the way. 

“New” (or rediscovered) religions have their own bullshit people in them like every other religion does. 

But please don’t blame our gods for the actions of humans. Don’t blame our religion itself, which is a lifeline for so many of us. A literal lifeline.

Loki helped me see how I did not deserve to be treated how I’m being treated by my parents. And he’s helping me break free of them.

Loki helped me embrace my responsibility as a citizen on Earth to take care of the planet that loves and provides for us in so many ways. 

Loki helped me realize that I must join the struggle to end discrimination. 

Loki is helping me transition into adulthood and be the person I know in my soul I should be.  Loki helped me realize just how important it was to fight against the injustices of economic inequality. 

After a particularly bad day at work or school or at home Loki helps me remember that I am a person with rights.  Loki has helped many people hold onto their self-respect and hope through abusive situations and helped them find a way out of those situations  I literally have met a fellow Loki worshipper who stopped self-harming because of Loki’s help. A good friend of mine who follows a new-age religion, her religion got her through the worst parts of depression and helped her hold onto her will to live. And I know her religion is different from mine but it’s still right and wise and good. 

Loki helps me feel responsible. I know that every religion calls for its followers to make the world a better place. But when Loki specifically says to me that I am responsible for how my actions or words or thoughts or inaction affects other people, I am able to understand and internalize it. My doubts, my selfish desires, it all stops being able to hold me back. He makes me feel empowered in an incredibly humble yet incredibly strong way. When he tells me I’m responsible for fixing the world’s problems, for living better, I absorb and am sable to understand and internalize it in a way that cuts through the layers of apathy I build up sometimes. Loki makes me a better person. He helps me fight to end inequality and suffering. Loki has succeeded in doing that where many others have failed. 

And I’m not saying that other religions failed in general. They succeeded wonderfully and spectacularly for other people. Everyone has a different spiritual home. 

And everyone deserves to be in their spiritual home. 

And my home is Loki. 

And he makes me feel so much more connected to humanity than other religions have. He’s helped improve the interpersonal relationships between me and my loved ones. He’s helped me realize how all of humanity is a family and how we are called to live as such. He hasn’t isolated me from anyone except people who are toxic. Sure, since fellow Loki worshippers are few and far between the numbers make it difficult for me to have a religious community. But I have a community of found family. I have a community of social justice people from the groups I’m part of. I have the community of humanity which is the community we all should ultimately aspire to serve. Loki gave me a community that transcends religious lines. One I feel at home in. 

And in this world full of injustice I’m bound to not feel at home sometimes, and I do. But in the times when I don’t feel at home Loki helps me feel more at home.

It’s not about what we   c a l l   the forces that bring us to love and help each other and nature. It’s about how these forces help us become more responsible, more respectful, more kind, more selfless, more self-respecting, better. It’s all love in the end. 

And love is really just the connection we feel with the people and how we feel called to make the world a better place. 

Loki helps me make the world a better place. 

And if that offends you because you turn your nose up at non-traditional spirituality, then this blog is not for you. No judgement, it’s just not for you. 

[militant-holy-knight]

What Made the Almohad Caliphate So Bad?

Why the North African caliphate was the medieval equivalent to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. 

A common misconception about the Crusades, and particularly of the Reconquista, is that all Islamic states were essentially the same and united under the same banner when in reality, they had their own peculiar differences and were just as divided as the Christians were. Nothing exemplifies this better than the Almohad Caliphate, a 12th century Berber empire that emerged as a rebellious movement in the rapidly decaying Almoravid Empire and rose high enough in under a century to threaten Christendom before being beaten by the Crusaders.

“But Gaius”, I hear some of you saying: “ISIL is already an medieval minded organization. How they could be any different than the ones who lived in medieval times?”. Ah, my friends, there is more to ISIL than mere brutality and cruelty that conventional views tend to underestimate. One of the things that distinguished ISIL were that wanted to “purify Islam” by killing anyone they perceived as “apostates” or “infidels”. That is where the Almohads or al-Muwaḥḥidūn in Arabic (meaning “monotheists” or “unifiers”) come in.

Let’s start with their founder Ibn Tumart, a fiery Berber mullah notorious for being ultra-conservative and opposing art, songs, mixing of sexes in public and the selling of pork and alcohol, which were a common sight in the Mahgreb at the time, and blamed this on the laxness of the Maliki authority. While the Maliki school of thought is one of the most rigid ones in Sunni Islam, Tumart’s problem was that they tended to rely more on jurist consensus rather than following the Sunnah and the hadith to it’s letter.

His entire life reads like a comedic sketch: his fiery preachings lead to him getting expelled by the local authority until he moves to the next town and the exact same thing happens. It’s said this even happened in Mecca when he performed the hajj being thrown out because of his screeching. On the way back, he sailed on a ship and began throwing out boxes of wine and lecturing the sailors to pray at the correct time, leading them to be fed up and throwing him overboard (they fished him back later).

When Ibn Tumart made his way back to the Maghreb, he stopped by the Almoravid capital in Marrakesh and assaulted an emir’s sister for going out unveiled. He was brought before the local authorities and defended himself saying that he was merely a voice of reform and lectured the local emir and his jurists like he has been doing from town to town. When countered that at least on points of doctrine, there was little difference between them, Ibn Tumart brought out more emphasis on his own peculiar doctrines. After a lengthy examination, the Almoravid jurists of Marrakesh concluded Ibn Tumart, however learned, was blasphemous and dangerous, insinuating he was probably a agitator, and recommended he should be executed or imprisoned. The Almoravid emir, however, decided to merely expel him from the city, after a flogging of fourteen lashes.

That was an extremely poor decision, because Tumart proceeded to retreat to a cave in Igiliz, which was an conscious effort to emulate Muhammad when he entered the cave of Hira, where he adopted an ascetic life. That is when he began to attract followers gaining the fame of an holy man and miracle worker. In 1121, Ibn Tumart lamented his failure to persuade the Almoravids to reform by argument and after a particularly moving sermon, he suddenly “revealed” himself as the true Mahdi, the redeemer of Islam expected to return towards the end times. This was effectively a declaration of war on the Almoravid state - for to reject or resist the Mahdi's interpretations was equivalent to resisting God, and thus punishable with death as apostasy.

Though they began armed rebellion in the very next year, they didn’t exactly manage to have a successful track record against the Almoravids despite their weakened state. In fact, the Almohads were nearly annihilated during the Battle of al-Buhayra where several top generals were killed and Tumart himself died not too long afterwards. The death of their spiritual leader should have marked the end of their movement, but it was his successor Abd al-Mu’min who picked up the slack and proved to be far more competent in warring. He managed to conquer Marrakesh, overthrow the Almoravids and formally establishing the Almohad state which extended over Northern Africa as far Mamluk-held Egypt and managed to lead a Islamic resurgence into Iberia (or Al-Andalus as it was known by Muslims) retaking some territories lost to the Christian states in the north.

One of the things that distinguished the Almohads is that they rejected the doctrine of dhimmitude given to Christians and Jews living under their domain, allowing them to practice their religion on condition of submission to Muslim rule and payment of jizya. Sounds good right? No. The Almohads instead gave a choice to their non-Muslim subjects: convert to Islam or die. Except even those who converted were still forced to wear identifying clothing as they were not regarded as genuine Muslims. So imagine this scenario, dhimmitude is already a humiliating status, but now being forced to accept a religion they don’t want while having the same status as before is even more unbearable. Needless to say, this led to the mass martyrdom or exodus of many Christians and Jews.

Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, who himself fled the Almohad persecutions, composed an elegy mourning the destruction of many Jewish communities throughout Spain and the Maghreb under the Almohads. Among the notable Christian victims are the Franciscan friars John of Perugia and Peter of Sassoferrato, Saint Daniel and his companions Agnello, Samuel, Donulus, Leo, Ugolino and Nicholas, and the Mercedarian saint and priest Serapion of Algiers was persecuted when trying to free Christian captives. Non-Muslims were not the only victims of Almohad’s fanaticism: the famous Islamic philosopher Averroes who is held in high regard by Westerners today was accused of blasphemy for among many things, criticizing Muhammad’s treatment of women, and as such was exiled. It’s also perfectly plausible that many of the things deemed acceptable by the Almoravids (women uncovered, music, art, etc) were forbidden by the Almohads.

The darkest moment for Christendom came with the Battle of Alarcos, when an Almohad host led by Abu Yusuf Ya'qub al-Mansur decisively defeated the Kingdom of Castille and the knightly Orders of Santiago and Evora, killing over 30,000 into battle and leaving several castles deserted and many areas open to Islamic raidings. The Almohads were threatening to push north as far as possible and threatened to "march all the way to Rome and sweep the Basilica of Saint Peter with the Sword of Muhammad". This alarmed Pope Innocent III who called the European knights to crusade and served as basis for this song as by bard Gaudavan as rallying cry to help the Iberian Christians.

This ultimately culminated in the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa where King Alfonso VIII of Castille - the same one beaten in Alarcos - led the Christian host of 14,000 men (Portuguese, Castillans, Templars, Germans, French and others) against the Almohad caliph Muhammad al-Nasir, who had more than twice with 30,000 men in his command. Despite the impossible odds, the Christians managed to win (check this video for the details).

This defeat was a decisive point in the Reconquista, as the Almohad power was broken and they would never recover, with their territories breaking up into petty kingdoms (or taifas). It also marked the downfall of Islamic rule, since from now on Christians - more specifically Spaniards - would retake almost all their lands. Just before their end, the Almohads would ditch their doctrines in favor of more traditional ones and repudiate Ibn Tumart as the Mahdi, but their end came when their final pretender Idris al-Wathiq was killed by a slave and his possessions were later taken by the Marinid Sultanate who would try to take Iberia again, but they were soundly beaten in the Battle of Rio Salgado by the now much stronger Portuguese and Spaniards (though them taking the sultan’s entire harem and putting them to the sword may have done the trick).

So now you might be asking me now: why is this all relevant to the Islamic State? You see, their founder Abu Musaib al-Zarqawi was sorta kinda like Ibn Tumart, except he Zarqawi was a petty thief and a pimp rather than a scholar. His views were radical even by Salafi jihadists’ standards, urging the death of Shia Muslims more than the Christians and Jews. Osama bin Laden himself, at least thought as such and never particularly liked Zarqawi whether for personal reasons (Bin Laden’s own mother being Shia herself) or pragmatic ones (Zarqawi’s actions could divide Muslims more than unite them). And just like Ibn Tumart, he never lived to see the Islamic State (or Al-Qaeda in Iraq as it was known in his lifetime) become the nightmarish menace to everyone.

There are of course many obvious differences: ISIL apparently made a point to adhere to the dhimmi contract as far as the Assyrian Christians were concerned while the Almohads ditched it altogether. Or that Zarqawi never claimed to be the Mahdi, nor did his successor Abu-Bakr al-Baghadadi to legitimize themselves. Though there are many important parallels: ISIL was in essence an apocalyptic group just like the Almohads followed the Mahdi, whose presence marked the end times. They viewed the events in Syria and Iraq as the fulfillment of the prophecies about the end times and heavily derived their narrative from it. Their initial propaganda magazine Dabiq was named after an town where a hadith claims a great battle will occur between the Muslims and the Romans where the apocalypse will take place and Muslims will emerge victorious. The “Romans” in this case represent the West, which is why they carried out incessant attacks to provoke Americans and Europeans to fulfill this prophecy. 

The Almohads emerged during a period here they perceived Islam had decayed and needed reform or rejuvenation which is an rhetoric used by ISIL, but not necessarily exclusive to them. It’s somewhat reasonable to understand the Almohad Caliphate is not as well-known or prominent as other empires like the Umayyads or the Ottomans, since they are more important to local history, but I think we’d benefit more if we paid attention more.

[saltycinnabun]

I just finished Heaven’s Vault and it was great! I’ll admit, some of the animation/controls took getting used to, but after that this game was just what I was looking for! And, as I understand it has excellent replay value, I’m looking forward to a new game. 

First of all, I loved working on Ancient inscriptions. Which is fortunate, since this is the mechanic HV is built on. It was so satisfying how I went from just slotting in whatever words made sense to actually understanding the individual glyphs in words! I also think it’s so interesting that only a few words of spoken Ancient survive and are understood. Specifically, words carried on in Elborethian patois and Maersi’s local religion. I do appreciate that the game’s investigation wasn’t just relegated to studying dusty old ruins, but seeing the bits of history that are alive and in use, though perhaps unrecognized. Hopefully on my next playthrough I can take time to analyze the words we hear from the Eborethians, hoppers, and robots and try to make sense of them, in addition to growing my written vocabulary.

I also appreciate  the characters. The designs are really creative and diverse, and I liked how organic the conversation felt. You know those games where you can figure out the “right” dialogue to get a character to do what you want? Or where your relationship to a person is quantified? I like that HV didn’t do that. I can try to sweet-talk a character all I want, but if my actions haven’t backed it up, or if I’m asking too much, the character won’t go along with it. But at the same time, I did see change. Maybe it was just me getting a better hang of dialogue options, but I loved seeing Aliya go from a rather mean person to actually showing fondness for Six, Oroi, and Huang. When they eventually reciprocated, it was touching and didn’t feel forced.

Once you get past the animation I mentioned above, HV is also really beautiful. I’ll just get the mention of the rivers out of the way because wow, those are so cool and ethereal (and fun to navigate so long as you aren’t in an area of minor flow)! The character designs were, as i said, appealing and unique. And the moons all had their own wonders. The ornate Catkis gate, the rivers winding through Iox, the little stands in Renaki, the lush but desolate Emperor’s Graveyard. A lot of it draws from Mediterranean and Islamic looks, but meshed with elements of sci-fi like robots and steampunky (or at least some kind of -punk) spaceships. HV just has really neat and enjoyable designs.

I did kind of resent being unable to revisit certain moons, but I think it did serve to move the game forward and encouraged me to be thorough and daring in my investigation (and also almost kill Aliya a half dozen times). Okay, I still kind of resent it.

The thing I loved most though was the lore and progressive worldbuilding. By exploring sites, translating inscriptions, and finding artifacts, the history of the Nebula became increasingly complex, but still with a lot of room for interpretation and theorization! It gave me a feeling of freedom and choice, rather than being strung along to come to one big conclusion. Even after finding the Vault, I had so many questions left. I mean that in a good way. I’m not guessing because of bad writing, but because I feel like there is more to explore. It also felt like the dialogue options and guesses I chose mattered in regards to the way the timeline was updated, so I can’t wait to try out different choices in my replay!

[fear-the-0ld-bl00d]

hello! i was curious, if you feel comfortable discussing it, what does it mean to be a luciferian? i’m not familiar with that term, i’m assuming it’s a religion, but i was just curious what luciferians believe :)

Oh my, this is going to be a long reply but I hope that it will help.

Okay, first of all, I guess I can’t say much about theistic luciferianism from the practical side because of one simple reason - it’s not something I practice. I’m an atheist who finds luciferian philosophy as empowering and simply right, the reasons I will explain later. Just as there is theistic satanism (aka worshippers of devil) and atheistic satanism (good example may be the Church of Satan), there are theistic and atheistic luciferians.

By my understanding, theistic luciferians do believe in God but they find him as the bad guy. From luciferian point of view, he’s a tyrant, a despot. He’s a liar (Eve was told she would die if she had eaten the fruit from the tree of knowledge, which was not true), he’s selfish (guy basically made humans because he wanted someone to worship him and angels weren’t enough), he’s sadistic and cynical for his believers (remember what happened to Hiob?), he destroys everyone who dares to not believe in him or oppose his morality (many stories from the Bible, such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah). He tries to defend himself with this whole free will nonsense but at the same time he claims that there’s a special place where everyone who don’t believe in him or does something he doesn’t approve will suffer forever. Simplifing, this is how we, the luciferians, interpret the figure of God.

On the other hand, there’s Lucifer, literally the bearer of the light. He’s the fallen angel who opposed the tyrany of God. He didn’t want to fulfill God’s irrational will and decided to no longer serve him. Because of that, he was banished from the Heaven. He’s the very first rebel against God. While God is seen as a despot, Lucifer is a warrior for our free will. Also, Lucifer is the one who made Eve eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. In other words, he is the one who gave us the knowledge and the ability of critical thinking which is essential in analyzing reality and making rational choices (so he gave us the enlightenment). The fact that this one thing made God mad enough to banish humanity from Eden is another evidence of God’s despotic nature.

So as you can see, in luciferian philosophy Lucifer is the good guy who helped humanity to evolve mentally. Being inspired by Lucifer is to seek knowledge and truth, and to rebel against foolish will of authorities. It may be social constructs, it may be government - just think critically and decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong.

As I stated at the beginning of this post, I can’t say much about theistic luciferianism but I’ve seen that many of these people also practice magic. It’s a kind of occult religion, I guess.

End of the most informative part, let’s get to my personal story related to luciferianism.

So here’s my point of viewl. I’m from country where like 85% of people (and there are over 38 millions of us) claims to be Catholics. I would say that the Catholic Church has a huge impact on politics and general life there especially since a conservative party won last election. One of the things I guess are pretty rare in other countries is the fact that there’s a special lesson of catholicism in school and it’s financed from the government budget (so well basically everyone’s taxes). It’s not compulsory but the sole existence of this subject tells a lot about my country I guess (other religions such as islam don’t have such a lesson in our schools). I liked it in middle school because I had had a nice teacher and we learned mostly about the culture and symbolism of specific scenes and events in the Bible then but when I went to high school I escaped this shit after idk month I guess. The priest showed my class a lecture about ‘exorcisms’ which wasn’t about exorcisms at all - but it surely was about spreading hatred against other religions, other sexual orientations, the victims of rape(!) and women who had abortion (the lecturer literally told something about their wombs being haunted and ghosts of the ‘killed children’ possessing another children of these women). And it’s something common in the Catholic Church there.

But it’s just one of many examples of absurds related to the Catholic Church. A Catholic organisation, Ordo Iuris, tried to reduce already limited abortion laws there. Right now, our women can have abortion only in 3 cases: the pregnancy being caused by prohibited action (such as rape or incest), the pregnancy being a serious threat of women’s life or if there’s a suspicion of a serious defect of fetus (such as Down syndrome or toxoplasmosis). The Ordo Iuris wanted to deprive women of the second option, forcing them to give birth at cost of own life. Aaaand the Catholic Church there obviously approved. Fortunately, because of huge and loud protests it hadn’t enter into force.

Something like half a year ago there was finally a sentence in case of a young girl being several times raped by a priest. She had been held in his mother’s apartment, raped and tortured for long time. As an adult, she’s in ruin now, had had several suicide attempts and will never know the peace. He ruined her. And the judge decided that his order should pay her a huge (about 259700 $) reparation. Well, it pissed Catholics off. Many people attacked her on social platforms and it hadn’t even been regular citizens. Even politicians and important journalist mocked her saying things like ‘even whores don’t get so much money’. She tried to kill herself again. She still lives and I hope that she’s better now. This is the Catholic love of neighbor there.

Saying about recent scandals, during Lent, one of parish in Gdańsk decided to make an event for children. They had to bring things related with other religions or occultism in their homes and then... Burn it outside the church. Like, what the heck??? Among burned things were books like Harry Potter but also a traditional African mask. The Church there literally burns things related to other religions or cultures. Also, few days ago there was a huge scandal because of Burning of Judas in one town. It’s a kind of an old folk ritual and there wouldn’t be anything special about that if... their Judas wasn’t designed after the stereotypes about Jews. It had huge nose, payots, and a big wide-brimmed hat. People beat it (encouraging children to do the same), then cut off it’s head and burned the doll at the stake. And that day was an anniversary of the beginning of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Do I have to say more?

As you can see, because of many reasons I guess I have a right to be angry and see this institution there as a bunch of dangerous fools. I don’t have anything against Catholics in general and I mourned the victims of Sri Lanka, but the very institution is just toxic for the society. In my opinion and regarding history, the Catholic Church had always been against people and progress, both cultural and scientific. Because of that, I do and I will oppose them and their tyranny, just like Lucifer once did. He’s my role model and encourages me both to rebel against injustice in society and to improve myself as a person and a scholar.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk *drops the microphone*