Ibrahim Abdul-Rauf

Allah is God, Al-Wahid Al-Ahad Al-Samad, without partner or need. There is nothing like Him. Humans, as created beings, are naturally in need of Him, they also have likenesses. It's a natural human tendency therefore to be compared with one another, and thus to have role models.

" In any case, #Algeria reportedly helped mediate the departure of #Russia ’s #Africa Corps from #Kidal after the #FLA took the city on April 25...communication between the FLA & the Algerian authorities" Interesting about #Mali & Algeria by @sahelblog alexthurston.substack.com/p/algeria-and-…

Pretty funny that Soviet commander in Afghanistan over 1984 was named General Generalov. Leonid Generalov, to be precise, but in this case I prefer to use his title.

2012 to be precise

Yeah it was about 15 yrs ago a friend from the peninsula informed ignorant me that the real prlblem in UAE wasnt flashy Maktoum Dubai as much as malevolent Nahyan Abu Dhabi.

@khameni412097 He went for aid and stuff and also wanted to start a business to employ ppl. He was very old, in his 70s for sure. He is a distant relation thru marriage so I lost touch, but recently heard from mutual relations

I don't understand he went to Kabul because there was fear of starvation ? Like was he there helping other people ?

@LongshotIbrahim The crazy part is if it was a Dubai led UAE we probably wouldn't have seen the bloody shenanigan policies of "Little Sparta" Abu Dhabi has been implementing.

The "partition plan" they are talking about was in 1922, not 1947. It refers to the creation of Transjordan as a self-governing Arab emirate within the Mandate for Palestine but excluded from the Jewish homeland. A pervasive lie has been spread about this since 1925. The claim is that "Palestine" in the Balfour Agreement included Transjordan, but the British split off the land east of the Jordan river to create an Arab state, leaving the Jews with only the land west of the Jordan. This lie appears to have been originally spread by the Revisionist Zionist Ze'ev Jabotinsky. It took me weeks to piece together the real story from original sources. Transjordan was never included in the 1917 Balfour Agreement. It was at that time part of the Ottoman Vilayet of Syria. In 1916, Syria was provisionally divided in two by the Sykes-Picot agreement, with the northern half being a French "sphere of influence" and the southern half ("Transjordan") British. Sykes & Picot envisaged the two powers collaborating to establish an Arab state or confederacy of states in Syria. Talk about wishful thinking. Britain did want an Arab state there, since it had already promised this to the Hashemites in return for Arab help in defeating the Ottomans. But France wanted another Algeria. At the time of the San Remo Conference (1920), which allocated the Mandates, the whole of Syria (including Transjordan) was ruled from Damascus by Britain's Hashemite ally Feisal. He had just declared Syria independent and himself King. Against the wishes of the Syrians (King-Crane Commission 1919), and arguably violating the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Conference allocated the Mandate for Syria to France and the Mandates for Palestine and Iraq to Britain. Importantly, the Conference did not define the boundaries of the Mandates. It left Britain and France to thrash this out between themselves. There are numerous maps circulating that claim to show "San Remo Conference boundaries", but they are all fake. Three months after the Conference, France invaded Syria, deposed Feisal and established a military occupation. However, the occupation did not extend south of the Sykes-Picot line. The area known as "Transjordan" was left ungoverned. In France's eyes, it was a British responsibility. Feisal's brother Abdullah raised a small army and moved into Transjordan, setting up his base in Amman. From there he conducted guerilla raids into French Syria and across the Jordan into British Palestine, both of which he claimed. He threatened to raise an army and kick out both the French and the British. The British didn't take Abdullah's threats seriously, but the guerilla attacks were annoying and they did need to govern Transjordan - they feared that if they didn't, it would de facto be run by the French from Damascus. So they agreed a deal with the Hashemites (known as the "Hashemite Solution"). Feisal would become King of Iraq, and Abdullah would become Emir of the smaller Transjordan. Both would legally be under British oversight. For Iraq this was easy, since Britain was the Mandatory power for Iraq. But France was nominally the Mandatory power for Transjordan. To bring Transjordan under British oversight in accordance with the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the League of Nations agreed to add it to the Mandate for Palestine. This was in 1921, before the Mandates had been finalised. But there was a problem. The draft Mandate for Palestine incorporated the Balfour Agreement. Adding Transjordan to it would significantly extend the scope of the Jewish homeland and impose on Abdullah an obligation towards Jews that he would not accept. So Article 25 was added to the Mandate to exclude Transjordan from the Jewish homeland. Jabotinsky originally agreed to the exclusion of Transjordan from the Jewish homeland. But by 1925, he had changed his mind and was laying claim to Transjordan as part of the "Jewish state". This remains the Revisionist Zionist position now...

Pretty sure that European colonial empires frequently introduced colonial punishment as an attempted "deterrent". HECK the current Epstein Coalition (US and Israel) assault from Iran to Lebanon and US blockade of Cuba is exactly this too

Carlson literally at one point in the Economist interview says that Western civilization doesn't believe in collective punishment, a total abject lie, but that barely filters through because the interviewer is a totally ridiculous person who can't bring herself to say some very basic things about Palestine that Carslon can.

Nature is healing.

One can argue that the Islamic Republic is bad, is unpopular, hasn't delivered what it promised; or that it should be replaced with a different system. One cannot claim that it is "illegally occupying Iran". The Islamic revolution of 1979 was a popular uprising in favor of Ayatollah Khomeini. The popular referendum that created the Islamic Republic was overwhelmingly approved by voters in what pretty much the entire world considered a fair and open vote (despite being a simple yes/no ballot). As to a "free Iran", it's easy to argue for it, but a little more difficult to articulate what that should look like. Some would argue that neither of the two major opposition groups--the monarchists under Pahlavi, backed by Israel, and the MEK under Maryam Rajavi backed by hardly anyone--would bring about a "free Iran". Seems this is the reason the Trump administration seems to prefer dealing with Islamic Republic as it is....

Yes, this is what I told McCoy. This occurred in October 1985.

To make the jump from a mentally ill man attacking 3 people, two Jews and a Muslim, to saying peaceful Pro-Palestinian marches must be banned as a consequence, is totally irrational, bizarre and downright Orwellian. This lunacy from our politicians must be challenged.

Malik ibn Dinar رحمه الله said: "Make the obedience of Allah your job; you'll earn profits without having to sell anything." • [روضة العقلاء ونزهة الفضلاء ٢٧]

Absolute bombshell. Former TikTok executive Liban Mohamed exposes how the Zionist lobby relentlessly pressured the platform. He confirms pro-Israel organizations inundated TikTok with threats to ban the app, while pro-Palestinian voices asked for absolutely nothing.

THE best form of retail therapy is donating to help others. You'll feel infinitely better after spending $20 to feed starving people than you will after spending $20 on a little treat for yourself. Try it.

I have a relative (distant), old retiree who went to Afghanistan in late 2021 bcos there was fear of starvation and he felt it best to try to help. Anyway I recently heard abt him again, he is OK in Kabul but understantably very mad at the regime in his homeland Pakistan nowadays

STORY OF A MASS RAPE CASE - On FEBRUARY 23, 1991, a CORDON-AND-SEARCH OPERATION was carried out in Kunan Poshpora by units of the Indian Army after reports of MILITANT ACTIVITY. MEN were reportedly TAKEN OUT for INTERROGATION, leaving WOMEN, CHILDREN, and ELDERLY inside their homes. Multiple SURVIVORS later ALLEGED that MASS RAPE and SEXUAL VIOLENCE took place during the night. The FIR recorded around 23 women, while some reports estimated 100 WOMEN . The incident has been described in various REPORTS and TESTIMONIES as a case of MASS SEXUAL VIOLENCE during a MILITARY OPERATION. However, OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS at the time DISMISSED the allegations as BASELESS, and NO PROSECUTIONS followed. The Indian Army has CONSISTENTLY DENIED all involvement. The Indian Army DENIED ALL ALLEGATIONS, calling them FALSE and UNPROVEN. Government-backed investigations at the time declared the claims “BASELESS” or “WORTHLESS”, and NO ONE WAS PROSECUTED HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS questioned these findings, raising concerns about BIAS and INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION For YEARS, the case remained SILENCED due to STIGMA, FEAR, and SOCIAL PRESSURE. Survivors reportedly faced ISOLATION, TRAUMA, and long-term IMPACT on their lives. In 2013, survivors and activists moved COURT to REOPEN the case, leading to orders for REINVESTIGATION, though legal challenges followed. More than 30 YEARS LATER, the case remains LEGALLY UNRESOLVED, DEEPLY CONTESTED, and POLITICALLY SENSITIVE raising ongoing questions about JUSTICE, ACCOUNTABILITY, and HUMAN RIGHTS in conflict zones.

Nah, I wanna be a historian (not an intellectual historian though) and I LOVE reading primary texts

@salamnhowdy Drip