Nawab

10.2K posts

Nawab banner
Nawab

Nawab

@WDLD0712

(Unfree) Market economy enthusiast | Rohingya Propagandist

Sodom and Gomorrah Katılım Ocak 2021
924 Takip Edilen1.6K Takipçiler
Nawab retweetledi
Alborean wanderer
Alborean wanderer@AlboranNomad·
White man who loves his ethnic wive because she is traditional and submissive and the ethnic wive who loves her white husband because he isn't like ethnic men who want a traditional and submissive wife. Crazy how common this is.
English
14
79
1.8K
57.6K
Nawab retweetledi
Bheria ☪️
Bheria ☪️@BheriaMS·
"Trads™ never stop to consider that perhaps feudal agrarianism and nomadic pastoralism didn’t arise from an “Islamic context” either, nor do they scrutinise the spiritual health of these bygone societies."
Nawab@WDLD0712

Trad™ Muslims do not, and will not, subject premodern modes of production and social organisation to the same level of moral and ontological scrutiny as they do urbanised industrial modernity. At most, they’ll acknowledge that feudal agrarianism and nomadic pastoralism saw it’s fair share of evils, but they’ll never explore how these premodern anthropological systems were innately predisposed to structurally engendering forms of oppression unique to its ontology. But they’ll absolutely refuse to entertain the need for industrial modernity, because it is “ontologically kufri”. It just so happened that Islam was so culturally hegemonic in the medieval age, that it partially sublimated feudal agrarianism and nomadic pastoralism. However Islam couldn’t fundamentally root out the structural evils endemic to it. This is the Dunya; Islam didn’t come to bring utopia on earth, it came to make Allah’s Kalimah supreme on this earth. We can only try to organise society in a way most amenable to fulfilling our duties to Allah. The mode of human organisation must shift to accommodate the needs of the age. Trads™ will pay lip-service by saying that “proper application of Islam” solves the problems of premodern anthropologies, which completely ignores that Islam had to fight the spiritually-entropic tendency of these premodern systems. Reversion to the mean meant reversion to barbarism and oppression. This is just conveniently glossed over. But they’ll prattle endlessly about why industrial modernity is ontologically evil, and how it precludes spiritually healthy society because it emerged from the socio-cultural context of Northwestern Europe in the Great Divergence. Trads™ never stop to consider that perhaps feudal agrarianism and nomadic pastoralism didn’t arise from an “Islamic context” either, nor do they scrutinise the spiritual health of these bygone societies (it wasn’t all pretty, to say the least). This is the psychosis of the traumatised Trad™ who hunkers down in his impotence against colonial forces, unable to envisage Islam’s sublimation of industrial modernity. They hope the world somehow reboots to a time before the Steam Age, where all will be will again. Trads™ throw the baby of industrial modernity out with its bathwater.

English
3
3
22
755
Nawab
Nawab@WDLD0712·
I would argue it is a genetic fallacy, because Rasulullah’s صلى الله عليه سلم governance of something doesn’t necessarily and implicitly impart sanctity and superiority of that thing, it just imparts permissibility. However what does impart superiority and sanctity is that which is useful to make Allah’s Kalimah supreme. Somewhat relevant hadith below
Nawab tweet media
English
1
0
3
95
Xoca
Xoca@escutarian·
@WDLD0712 In other words, the system can be seen as a product of the most perfect sovereign. Today, forget the sovereign being Muslim the system is created by people who actively oppressed your fathers. This can’t be dismissed as purely genetic fallacy, since its the Prophet in question.
English
2
0
5
163
Nawab
Nawab@WDLD0712·
Trad™ Muslims do not, and will not, subject premodern modes of production and social organisation to the same level of moral and ontological scrutiny as they do urbanised industrial modernity. At most, they’ll acknowledge that feudal agrarianism and nomadic pastoralism saw it’s fair share of evils, but they’ll never explore how these premodern anthropological systems were innately predisposed to structurally engendering forms of oppression unique to its ontology. But they’ll absolutely refuse to entertain the need for industrial modernity, because it is “ontologically kufri”. It just so happened that Islam was so culturally hegemonic in the medieval age, that it partially sublimated feudal agrarianism and nomadic pastoralism. However Islam couldn’t fundamentally root out the structural evils endemic to it. This is the Dunya; Islam didn’t come to bring utopia on earth, it came to make Allah’s Kalimah supreme on this earth. We can only try to organise society in a way most amenable to fulfilling our duties to Allah. The mode of human organisation must shift to accommodate the needs of the age. Trads™ will pay lip-service by saying that “proper application of Islam” solves the problems of premodern anthropologies, which completely ignores that Islam had to fight the spiritually-entropic tendency of these premodern systems. Reversion to the mean meant reversion to barbarism and oppression. This is just conveniently glossed over. But they’ll prattle endlessly about why industrial modernity is ontologically evil, and how it precludes spiritually healthy society because it emerged from the socio-cultural context of Northwestern Europe in the Great Divergence. Trads™ never stop to consider that perhaps feudal agrarianism and nomadic pastoralism didn’t arise from an “Islamic context” either, nor do they scrutinise the spiritual health of these bygone societies (it wasn’t all pretty, to say the least). This is the psychosis of the traumatised Trad™ who hunkers down in his impotence against colonial forces, unable to envisage Islam’s sublimation of industrial modernity. They hope the world somehow reboots to a time before the Steam Age, where all will be will again. Trads™ throw the baby of industrial modernity out with its bathwater.
English
7
12
89
8.9K
Nawab
Nawab@WDLD0712·
@ACaldoon May Allah bless your time and grant you tawfiq Engaging good faith divergent takes is how we can test and refine our thought, lest we persist in a bubble of untested incoherence.
English
1
0
3
56
Adam Caldoon
Adam Caldoon@ACaldoon·
@WDLD0712 I'll be honest. I enjoy reading your ideas & would love to discuss further. Twitter is awful for this. Maybe I'll create a substack to facilitate discussions. Pray that Allah blesses my time. I don't always agree with you but I cherish good faith divergent takes.
English
1
0
1
71
Nawab
Nawab@WDLD0712·
@PiratePareto @ACaldoon Let me rephrase that, capitalism is for the bourgeoisie Because all accumulated capital is owned by public or private entities ultimately
English
1
0
0
52
Nawab
Nawab@WDLD0712·
Capital accumulation is the prerequisite, not capitalism. Capitalism assumes capital accumulation is undertaken for and by the interests of the capital-owning class. Other socio-political systems undertake capital accumulation for and by other interest groups, such as communism and fascism.
English
1
0
1
59
Nawab
Nawab@WDLD0712·
Whenever a people transition from one mode of production and social organisation to another, it is disruptive and extreme process. Hunter-gathering -> Agrarianism (Neolithic to Chalcolithic) Pastoralism -> Agrarianism (Proto Indo-European sedentarisation) Agrarianism -> Pastoralism (Pontic Slavic serfs becoming Cossack raiders) I see industrial urbanism as another of these processes, albeit one that engenders post-scarcity environments. My use of modernity is in reference to this sharp departure from pre-modern modes of production, and not ideology (though admittedly production can be driven by ideology). Forgive me if I happen to be talking past you.
English
1
0
1
80
Adam Caldoon
Adam Caldoon@ACaldoon·
@WDLD0712 nomadic pastoralism reframed alternates between symbiotic, parasitic, destructive & revivalist depending on the circumstances. Urban industrial modernity, is a distinction w/o a difference. Adding modernity as an ideological component is problematic but I let it slide.
English
2
0
0
100
Nawab
Nawab@WDLD0712·
@ACaldoon Also, note how my original post spoke of urban industrial modernity, not industrial >capitalism<
English
1
0
5
115
Nawab
Nawab@WDLD0712·
Every system preserves the stability and interests of the in-group at the expense of the out-group. In your argument, capital protects its interests and stability against that of labour. Nomadic pastoralism has a track record of permanently disrupting agrarian societies and causing desertification and depopulation.
English
1
0
6
352
Nawab retweetledi
Abdullah
Abdullah@AvdullahYousef·
There’s a funny circular argument they love to get into. Brother, we weren’t sent to this earth to be the most technologically advanced or industrially modern, but to make God’s religion supreme. Then you ask them, well how do you plan on doing that when we’re such abject material failures? Well brother, if we go back to being the way the traditional Muslims of old were, then God will make us the most advanced and victorious. But didn’t you just say that material victory didn’t matter?
Nawab@WDLD0712

Trad™ Muslims do not, and will not, subject premodern modes of production and social organisation to the same level of moral and ontological scrutiny as they do urbanised industrial modernity. At most, they’ll acknowledge that feudal agrarianism and nomadic pastoralism saw it’s fair share of evils, but they’ll never explore how these premodern anthropological systems were innately predisposed to structurally engendering forms of oppression unique to its ontology. But they’ll absolutely refuse to entertain the need for industrial modernity, because it is “ontologically kufri”. It just so happened that Islam was so culturally hegemonic in the medieval age, that it partially sublimated feudal agrarianism and nomadic pastoralism. However Islam couldn’t fundamentally root out the structural evils endemic to it. This is the Dunya; Islam didn’t come to bring utopia on earth, it came to make Allah’s Kalimah supreme on this earth. We can only try to organise society in a way most amenable to fulfilling our duties to Allah. The mode of human organisation must shift to accommodate the needs of the age. Trads™ will pay lip-service by saying that “proper application of Islam” solves the problems of premodern anthropologies, which completely ignores that Islam had to fight the spiritually-entropic tendency of these premodern systems. Reversion to the mean meant reversion to barbarism and oppression. This is just conveniently glossed over. But they’ll prattle endlessly about why industrial modernity is ontologically evil, and how it precludes spiritually healthy society because it emerged from the socio-cultural context of Northwestern Europe in the Great Divergence. Trads™ never stop to consider that perhaps feudal agrarianism and nomadic pastoralism didn’t arise from an “Islamic context” either, nor do they scrutinise the spiritual health of these bygone societies (it wasn’t all pretty, to say the least). This is the psychosis of the traumatised Trad™ who hunkers down in his impotence against colonial forces, unable to envisage Islam’s sublimation of industrial modernity. They hope the world somehow reboots to a time before the Steam Age, where all will be will again. Trads™ throw the baby of industrial modernity out with its bathwater.

English
3
13
114
5.7K
Nawab retweetledi
der erlkönig
der erlkönig@cvmonakow·
If you peer under the lid of the "pro-youth" right-winger, all you find is a bunch of 30+ yo men attempting to justify why it's eugenic for them to steal younger mens' girlfriends
Fendigaid@fendigaid

@DukeHerndon The stark physical difference between young men and young women of the same age is severely understated. Relationships with significant age gaps are very obviously biologically advantageous.

English
39
82
1.2K
42.7K
Nawab
Nawab@WDLD0712·
@Prepetitioning Now that is a Dravslop monstrosity if there ever was one
English
0
0
1
69
Nawab
Nawab@WDLD0712·
Mu’minun in muslim countries are oblivious to the fact that they are in fact in competition with their secular liberal countrymen for the accumulation of capital and power (and badly losing right now). As such, the Mu’min must be self-aware and employ any and all strategies permitted by the outer bounds of the shari’a to win. But don’t get jailed or killed, because then you’re useless to us all. The Mu’min cannot afford ickiness. No “but muhh jewish fiqh”. The moral compass of the Mu’min must point towards whatever makes Allah’s Deen highest on earth, starting with his qawm. Internationalism, at least at this stage, saps energy and focus. The Mu’min cannot afford to defend any secondary ideological commitments, especially if it impedes the above. His ideology is only that which maximises zero-sum accumulation of capital and power.
English
5
6
73
2.9K