Abû Bakr Sy Faber

So basically now Iran has 24 hours to surrender or they’ll have 14 days to surrender.

Voting for politicians is like rearranging dog shit in your yard.

There are more Black men under correctional control in the United States today, in prison, on parole, on probation, than were enslaved in 1850. Read that again. Before the Civil War. Before emancipation. Before the auction block and the whip had disappeared from American life. There were fewer Black men under the total control of the American legal system then than there are now. This is the country that sends annual human rights reports to the UN. This is the country that imposes sanctions on other nations for their treatment of minority populations. This is the country that has the word "liberty" on its currency. The audacity is not even hidden anymore. It stopped needing to hide.

Iran better be careful. If Iran doesn’t surrender in 24 hours, Donald Trump is going to give them two weeks to surrender.

The third world isn't a place, it's a people. Third world countries exist because they are full of third world people. If you send every German to Nigeria and every Nigerian to Germany, in 5 years, Nigeria will become a civilized nation and Germany will become a third world.

This is one of the most unusual sentences in any religious text. In my opinion, the most unusual in any book. It makes a logical appeal: if it was from other than a divine source, their would have been a lot of inconsistency within the Quran. The better translation is: much inconsistency. Not inconsistencies. The root word here is khlf- it means change, not contradictions. This is remarkable when you consider that the Quran was revealed over 23 years, in organic response to live events. It addresses theology, laws, household affairs, trade, divorce, marriage etc… Yet there’s little difference tonal drift, or style change. All throughout, it’s very distinguishably Quranic. If you read any author who has written extensively, over long periods of time, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Marx, Virginia Woolf etc.. you’ll find that their style evolves, it changes, early Shakespeare is very different to late Shakespeare and so on. Scholars call it register consistency and idiolect stability. Across human authors, especially under duress, these tend to fracture. Dostoevsky wrote very differently before and after his mock execution and Siberian exile. Tolstoy's late work is almost a repudiation of his early work. The psychological pressure shows. Yet, besides the Meccan and Medinian shift, which was intentional and purposeful, there is almost no tonal drift. Over 23 years, of which more than 15 were years of stress, persecution, defending against military attacks, the Prophet, peace be upon him, losing his first wife, his children, the period of the fatra, the sieges, etc.. yet, the style is consistent. A human would sway and change, develop with the time, etc.. find better styles. The theology is also very stable from the beginning to the end: One God, judgement day, heaven and hell, human nature, human is redeemable, God is forgiving. It’s also incredibly unusual as a statement, because whoever made it, was aware of human psychology of authorship. That humans drift in authorship over a long time, which isn’t a very easy assessment to make in the desert, with so few books. The argument is structurally interesting because it's self-referential and falsifiable in principle, it invites scrutiny rather than demanding blind acceptance. That's unusual for any text, religious or otherwise. The verse also doesn't say "no inconsistency" or even "little inconsistency." It says "katheeran", much or many. The threshold being set is deliberately calibrated. So the argument is actually more modest and therefore more defensible than critics often engage with. It's claiming the absence of the level of inconsistency you would naturally expect from a human source operating under those conditions over that duration. This matters because it immunises the argument against weak counterexamples. When a critic points to the Meccan/Medinan shift, the text has already pre-empted that by not claiming impossible perfection. The bar is set honestly. Which is itself another unusual feature of the argument, it doesn't overclaim. Most apologetic arguments across religions tend to assert too much, which makes them brittle. This one is almost forensically careful about what it is and isn't saying. والله أعلم

The Prophetﷺ said: "Whoever wakes up at night and says: La ilaha illallahu wahdahu la sharika lah, lahu al-mulku wa lahu al-hamdu, wa huwa 'ala kulli shay'in qadir. Al-hamdu lillah, wa subhanallah, wa la ilaha illallah, wallahu akbar, wa la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah. And then says: Allahumma'ghfir li They are promised a response from Allah (du'a will be answered)".

Eleven women sat together talking about their husbands. Each one describing what kind of man he was. Some were good. Some were not so good. And Aisha (RA) heard the whole thing. So one day, she told the Prophet ﷺ the entire story.

If capitalism truly rewarded skill or intelligence, the richest people would be neurosurgeons, engineers, and scientists. If it rewarded talent, it would be artists, writers, and creators. If it rewarded hard work, it would be cleaners, laborers, and service workers. But it’s none of them.