Sabitlenmiş Tweet
I’ll be posting All updates here from now on:
spacetech-gulf.com/2026/04/gcc-sp…
English
ًً
3.9K posts
ًً
@kelevitch
space policy and international relations https://t.co/YRJJH8Cwyo
🇶🇦 Katılım Ekim 2019
259 Takip Edilen12K Takipçiler
The Mongol destruction of Baghdad in 1258 is overrated as a turning point, the real civilizational collapse happened 200 years earlier and was self-inflicted.
Everyone has the 1258 story. Hulagu Khan, the Tigris running black with ink, the end of the Abbasid Caliphate. It’s the perfect tragedy; external, dramatic, blame clearly assignable. Muslims reach for it instinctively when explaining decline.
But look at what was already gone before the Mongols arrived.
Al-Ghazali died in 1111. His Tahāfut al-Falāsifa, whatever its genuine theological merits functionally delegitimized rational philosophy as a pursuit worthy of serious Muslim intellectual energy. Not immediately, not totally, but the trajectory it set was real. By the time the Mongols came, the institutional appetite for speculative rational inquiry had already been declining for over a century.
The great translation movement, the engine of the Golden Age had essentially exhausted itself by the 11th century. The bayt al-hikma model was already fading. The madrasa system that replaced it was explicitly designed around naql over ’aql, transmission over generation.
Ibn Rushd, the greatest philosophical mind the Islamic world produced, died in 1198 ignored in the East, his works preserved and debated by European scholastics who built their entire university tradition partly on him. He was more alive in Paris than in Cairo.
So when the Mongols burned Baghdad they were largely burning a library of a civilization that had already stopped writing the books.
The deeper wound is that
Defeat is recoverable. The Mongols themselves became Muslim within two generations. But a civilization that loses the will to think, that decides curiosity itself is dangerous.. that is a different kind of collapse entirely.
External conquest you can survive. You’ve seen it in Islamic history repeatedly; Crusades, Mongols, colonialism, communities rebuilt. What you cannot easily survive is when the internal legitimacy of inquiry gets revoked by your own scholars in the name of protecting the tradition.
That’s the move that actually broke something. And it was made from the inside.
English
Nkrumah was born in Ghana yes. He was also educated at Lincoln University and the University of Pennsylvania, where he absorbed Marcus Garvey’s Black Nationalism and American civil rights philosophy. His Pan-Africanism was intellectually formed in the diaspora even if he wasn’t born there. The ideology traveled west to east, not the other way around. That’s the point
Europe’s coalescence happened through centuries of shared civilizational framework; Roman law, Latin Christianity, the Enlightenment that created genuine cultural convergence before any political union existed. The EU then took 50+ years of incremental institution building, still excludes major European nations, is currently fracturing under nationalist pressure, and is held together primarily by economic self-interest not identity.
More importantly, the EU doesn’t ask Germans to stop being German. It’s a political and economic framework built on top of existing distinct identities, not a demand that those identities dissolve into one.
Pan-Africanism asked something far more radical, that people whose primary loyalties were ethnic and religious reorganize themselves around skin color. That’s not what Europe did. Europe built institutions. Pan-Africanism built a feeling.
(Also — Brexit.)
Tanekalouit-Touraouet ⵜⵏⴽⵍⵡⴷⵜ ⵜⵡⵔⵡⵜ@AishaDaughter
For a start, Kwame Nkrumah is continental African not diasporic. Your argument is that Africa is somehow too complex for Pan-Africanism to work, but Europe, with over 250 indigenous languages and 44 countries, has mostly coalesced under a Pan-European polity. Why is that?
English
Regarding these normalisations talks with lsraeI, Saudi is the only one that matters, UAE and Bahrain already normalized, they’re done. But Saudi normalization is the prize. Without it, the Abraham Accords remain a footnote. And MBS is too calculated to move right now.
He wanted normalization before October 7 in exchange for concrete security guarantees and a credible Palestinian state pathway. He got neither. Now he’s watching a war that killed a sitting head of state, displaced millions, and nearly collapsed global energy markets and Trump is asking him to sign on to that vision? MBS will smile, take the security guarantees, pocket the economic benefits and stall indefinitely.
The street pressure is real now in a way it wasn’t before
Post-Gaza, post this war, any Arab leader who normalizes is handing their opposition the most powerful mobilization tool imaginable. Even authoritarian governments have limits on how far they can get ahead of public sentiment.
And lran isn’t finished.
If lran was genuinely neutralized, regime collapsed, proxies disbanded, Hormuz open then maybe you’d see movement. But a wounded Iran with a new hardline successor and active proxies is still a deterrent against full normalization. Nobody wants to be the Arab state that normalized right before lran reconstitutes.
If Trump delivers a genuine Palestinian state framework even a cosmetic one, MBS might move. But Netanyahu would collapse his own government before allowing that.
So the answer is: publicly, maybe some language. Substantively, no.
It’s one of those situations where the more you zoom out the clearer it becomes that everyone is trapped by their own constraints.
Trump needs a win. Netanyahu needs the war to continue existing politically. MBS needs to not look like he sold out the Palestinian cause. Iran needs to survive without looking like it surrendered. The Palestinians don’t have a seat at any table.
Nobody has the freedom to actually close a deal that would hold.
The most likely outcome is managed ambiguity language that sounds like progress, frameworks that go nowhere, and the region simmering at a lower temperature while everyone claims victory domestically.
Which is basically the Middle East default setting.
English
@kelevitch they've been isolated by Prevent policies & the 2000s war on terror campaigns 🥲 generationally tapped unfortunately & perpetually an under-class so they're so insular they're getting so bizarre.
English
Uk muslims’ brains need to be studied for scientific purposes
♡@ceruleannmist
I'm crying the uk salafis have outdone themselves yet again
English
Part 2 : proving the reliability of the science of Hadith using NASA data
In 632 CE, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ lost his infant son Ibrahim.
Multiple companions independently recorded what happened that day:
“The sun eclipsed on the day Ibrahim died.”
This is in Sahih al-Bukhari. The most authenticated hadith collection in existence. Narrated by at least four companions independently with separate chains.
"The sun eclipsed in the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) on the day when (his son) Ibrahim died. So the people said that the sun had eclipsed because of the death of Ibrahim. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The sun and the moon do not eclipse because of the death or life (i.e. birth) of someone. When you see the eclipse pray and invoke Allah."
For 1,400 years this was simply a detail in a book.
Then NASA built the Five Millennium Catalog of Solar Eclipses.
On January 27, 632 CE NASA confirms an annular solar eclipse occurred. Visible from Medina. Exactly matching the date of Ibrahim’s death.
Four independent witnesses. Four separate chains of transmission. All preserved faithfully for 14 centuries. All confirmed by modern astronomy.
Ibn kathir say he died in Rabi al-Awwal 10 AH converts to approximately late January 632 CE. (There is different of opinions regarding the exact dates but they all lead to 632CE)
NASA confirms: Solar eclipse on January 27, 632 CE visible from Medina.
But there’s detail that destroys every “fabrication” theory:
When people said “the sun eclipsed because of Ibrahim’s death” the Prophet ﷺ stood up and corrected them.
“The sun and the moon do not eclipse because of the death of anyone.”
A fabricator would have kept the miracle.
A fabricator would have said YES Allah sent this sign for my son.
Instead the Prophet ﷺ removed the supernatural interpretation entirely. On the spot. In public.
And his companions faithfully recorded that correction even though it made the story less miraculous.
That’s not what liars do.
That’s what honest witnesses do.
Preserved by honest narrators.
Across 14 centuries.
Confirmed by NASA in the 21st century.
The isnad system works.
The science of hadith works.
The only escape route for a skeptic is to claim the date conversion is wrong. But the date conversion doesn’t come from Muslims trying to prove the miracle rather it comes from independent Islamic historical scholarship that predates NASA by centuries. Ibn Kathir recorded the date. Astronomers confirmed the eclipse. Nobody coordinated that across 1,400 years.
ًً@kelevitch
Part 1 : the death of Umar ibn al khattab رضي الله عنه A fascinating correlation exists between the historical narrations regarding the death of the second Caliph, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), and modern astronomical data provided by NASA proving the reliability of Islamic’s chain of transmission(isnaad) Islamic historians, relying on oral transmission chains, recorded the death of ‘Umar with specific precision. Ibn Kathir in Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah & Ibn Sa’d in Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra record that ‘Umar was attacked and subsequently passed away in the final days of ‘Dhu al-Hijjah, 23 AH’ The consensus places the event on a WEDNESDAY , roughly 3 or 4 days before the Islamic month ended. - The Eyewitness Account Buried in the collections of Imam al-Tabarani, there is a narration that adds a crucial atmospheric detail to this event. > The narrator Abd al-Rahman ibn Yasar stated: > ‘I witnessed the death of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, and the sun eclipsed on that day." > (Source: Al-Mu’jam al-Kabir, Narration verified by Al-Haythami) For centuries, this was simply a detail in a book. The narrators had no way of mathematically checking if an eclipse actually happened; they simply passed on what was said. - The Astronomical Verdict (NASA) When we convert the Islamic date (26th/27th Dhu al-Hijjah, 23 AH) into the Gregorian calendar, we arrive at the first week of November, 644 CE. Does the sky match the history books? According to ‘NASA’s Five Millennium Catalog of Solar Eclipses’ On November 5, 644 CE a solar eclipse occurred. The eclipse path crossed the Middle East. Residents of Medina would have seen a partial eclipse (where a significant portion of the sun is obscured). The date matches. The event matches. This leads to a profound conclusion: If the chains of narration were fabricated or "telephone games" prone to error, how did a narrator correctly pin a rare astronomical event to a specific date in 644 CE? They didn't have computer algorithms to predict past eclipses. The only way this report exists is if: 1. The event actually happened. 2. The witnesses were honest. 3. Every narrator in the chain faithfully preserved the memory for over 250 years until it was written down. [Map of Eclipse Path - Nov 5, 0644](eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsea…) Note on the map: You will see the path goes right over the Arabian region. While the "center" line is over North Africa, the "penumbral" shadow covers Arabia, meaning the eclipse was visible there.
English
Somalia is an Arab League member. You don’t recognize a breakaway region of a member state that’s essentially an act of hostility toward that member. The Arab League would be internally contradicting itself.
Dr Mohamed Hagi@AmbMohamedHagi
It is unfortunate that some Arab and Islamic countries have chosen political pressure over constructive engagement with Somaliland. Somaliland remains committed to its sovereign decisions and peaceful cooperation, our relation with Israel is important and based on mutual interests, and continue to grow in a stable and constructive direction.
English
I was talking more about the origin, Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, Kwame Nkrumah, these ppl shaped by the experience of being black outside Africa, where racial identity was forced on them. They then tried to export that consciousness back to a continent that didn’t organize itself that way which is the reason why it failed and it will keep failing bc they don’t have nothing in common except skin color
English
I'm no longer pan-african, but objectively the continental Africa is way not pan African though than the diaspora. it's more of a nostalgia of the independence golden era that's driving it, the older generation have tasted what it "could have been" so there's a younger generation yearning for the same. but pan-africanism isn't racial at all, it's biggest defender & founder was de-colonial Algeria.
English
Pan-African racial consciousness is largely a product of the diaspora, people who had their specific ethnic identities stripped away and were left with only “black” as a category. The irony is that the system that destroyed their specific identities is what created the broader one
English
Ted Cruz isn’t speaking for America here. He’s transmitting lsraeIi anxiety. Notice the framing “Islamists,” “death to America,” Malley. That’s not a senator analyzing a deal. That’s a lobbyist reading from a script. lran lost its navy. Its air force. Its missiles. Negotiating from that position is called winning.
Ted Cruz@tedcruz
I am deeply concerned about what we are hearing about an Iran “deal,” being pushed by some voices in the administration. President Trump’s decision to strike Iran was the most consequential decision of his second term. He was right to do so, and we achieved extraordinary military results—including destroying all of their missiles & drones and sinking their entire navy. If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant “death to America”—now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake. The details are still coming out—and I pray the early reports are wrong—but the fact that Biden’s Rob Malley is praising the deal is not encouraging. President Trump believes in peace through strength, and his strong leadership has already made America much safer. He should continue to hold the line, defend America & enforce the red lines he has repeatedly drawn.
English
The assumption underneath is: your authentic self is your desires, and any framework that disciplines desire is false consciousness you should escape.
Which is a very specific, very modern, very Western metaphysics being presented as common sense.
Every traditional religion on earth Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, Theravada Buddhism operates on the premise that the self is not the authority. That there is something above appetite that adjudicates the good life. You don’t have to agree with that. But to look at someone living inside that framework and say “why would you stay” is to just… not understand what religion is.
It’s also hilariously self-undermining. The same logic would be: “I’m not saying you shouldn’t eat whatever you want, but if your diet condemns cheeseburgers, why would you stay on it?” Because the point is the discipline. The friction is the practice.
The deeper irony is that these kind of people think they’re being inclusive making space for the queer Muslim. But what they’re actually doing is demanding the Muslim dissolve the Islam to make room for a self-conception the secular West is more comfortable with.
sai ✮@mmintey_
i’m not saying muslims shouldn’t be queer but if your religion condemns it then why would you stay faithful to said religion
English
ًً retweetledi
Democracy was never designed to produce good governance but rather designed to produce legitimate failure. The genius of it isn’t that it gives power to the people. It’s that when everything goes wrong and it will nobody can blame the king. The population consented. The population chose. The population is the king now, good luck.
This is why every serious democratic theorist from Tocqueville to Lippmann to Schumpeter was privately terrified of it. They knew the mechanism worked. They just didn’t think the inputs were reliable. And they were right because democratic choices are made by present selves on behalf of future selves who don’t get a vote.
Every election is a time horizon problem. And humans are catastrophically bad at time horizons.
The most democratically successful societies in history weren’t democracies. The Abbasid peak. Song Dynasty China. The Iroquois Confederacy. They had accountability mechanisms, elite circulation, legitimacy, without the four-year lobotomy of electoral cycles resetting institutional memory every time someone figures out how to weaponize grievance.
Democracy doesn’t empower the people.
It just makes sure that when the people are robbed, they hold the knife.
English
You stay in a religion bc you think it’s correct. The question assumes religion is a lifestyle brand you shop based on how well it affirms your identity and if it doesn’t, you return it.
But if you actually believe Allah exists, that the Quran is His word, that the Prophet ﷺ conveyed it truthfully then the question of whether it’s comfortable is completely irrelevant.
The person asking that question has already decided that desire is sovereign. So to them, any system that overrules desire is illegitimate by definition.
“Have you seen the one who takes his desire as his god?-
Or do you think that most of them listen or understand?1 They are only like cattle, no, more than that, they are astray from the ˹Right˺ Way!” 43/44 Al furqanw
English