Monday Memes | Take 74

Follow me on Facebook – click images to view original posts which sometimes have additional information and links in the posts or comments.

I’m also now on Twitter and Instagram – though the larger memes are not posted on Instagram because of the image cropping.

Feel free to DM me any memes you think deserve a place in next week’s meme selection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: the following memes are not my own.

 

 

 

 

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Baz

Recently Daniel Haqiqatjou (who is a good brother and hero of Islam mashallah) uploaded a video where he claimed that “liberals exterminated native Americans”. This claim is a little misleading despite being technically correct within an 19th century context. The “Liberals” of today (who aggressively push LGBT, BLM, SlutWalk and Unlimited Abortion) are very different and far-removed from the “liberals” of over a century or two ago, who are now actually seem to be ultra-conservative or even Taliban-like compared to the liberals of today. Today’s liberals (e.g. BLM) fiercely oppose and condemn yesterday’s 19th century so-called liberals for waging colonial wars against non-white native peoples, in addition to yesterday’s “liberals” not supporting LGBT+, BLM, SlutWalk, Unlimited Abortions and so on.

So from today’s perspective, liberals did not exterminate Native Americans, but actually it was ultra-conservative “Christian taliban” who made brutal deadly wars against native Americans, who in turn have not become extinct because of ultra-conservative Christian Taliban (whom Daniel calls “yesterday’s liberals”). Instead the native Americans still survive today, and the US government has granted them plenty of their own autonomous regions called “Indian Reservations” all over the country which are officially recognized as having their own subnational sovereignty and autonomy to make their own tribal laws for their local area without having to follow all the federal and state government laws.

Mustafa

Liberal. Conservative. They’re two wings on the same bird of imperialism, and I don’t think I agree with your rhetoric that the modern left is better than the modern right. The grassroots social justice movements hosted here are just to try claiming a moral high ground pertaining to human rights, but the ulterior motive is still money and control.

Modern progressive liberals attack any country (nowadays, mostly the same countries that the neocons attack) that has traditionalist views that are contrary to their political ideology of LGBT, feminism, unrestrained secularism, and comfortable decadence. They still seek geopolitical dominance in the Middle East, Europe, and East Asia. As far as I have observed, the Obama administration bombed more innocent Muslims and openly assassinated more American citizens than the Bush or Trump administrations ever did. During the past election, Joe Biden was elected on the promises of rebuilding America’s infrastructure and placing “human rights” as the main focus of his administration. Yet to this day, he has signed into law a $750 billion military spending bill at the expense of taxpayers, and has continued giving support to Israel (not fulfilling his promises to Palestine; we must remember he admitted he was a Zionist years ago, and confused Muslims still voted for him anyway) and Saudi Arabia’s unjustified military efforts.

Modern neoconservatives outwardly continue as the spiritual successors to the European Crusades to attack Muslims and subjugate other “enemy countries” such as China and Iran. They still believe in the “white man’s burden” and are orientalists to the core. Much of their rhetoric remains the same as that of the neoliberals, except instead of watching MSNBC, CNN, or the BBC, their people are typically audiences of Fox News and tote their guns and Bible for a revolution they’ll prepare for but never carry out, and a state based on Judeo-Christian law they’ll likely never establish.

In the end, the “traditional liberals” are a long gone relic of the past, and the end goal is that America and the EU wins (they see themselves as the center of the world and the highest of civilizations and morals), and everyone else (Russia, China, the Ummah, and others) loses. Please, break out of this false dichotomy of “Oh, the Democrats stand up for social justice, so therefore they’re on our side” or “Oh, the Republicans have values closer to Islam, therefore they’re on our side); truthfully speaking, neither the neoliberals or neoconservatives really care about Muslims. If America wants any sort of representation, they’ll need to form an Islamist party for any sort of representation, but I highly doubt America will let that happen to any degree.

George Washington, in his farewell address, warned of 3 main things that we are now seeing the effect of today in American society: 1. Remember to stay unified (for citizens to see each other as Americans that struggle together and prosper together) 2. Remember to maintain loyalty to country over party, rather than party over country (look at todays identity politics) 3. Remember to not delve deeply into foreign escapades (look at how many military bases we have abroad) and stay out of European affairs

This country’s failure to heed this very old warning is basically its inevitable downfall.

Baz

Did you even read my above comment? It looks like you didn’t. Nowhere did I ever mention that the either the ultra-liberal Democrats or the so-called “Conservative” Republicans are lesser evil or closer to us or that we should support them.

The main point that I was making is that Daniel is technically incorrect or misleading when he claimed in his latest YouTube video “Liberalism was spread by the sword” at 1:35 to 2:25 that the native Americans were exterminated by “liberals”.

Nowadays the definition of Liberal= LGBT+, radical feminazism, unlimited abortion, SlutWalk, pink pu55y hats, twerking in public, BLM, Critical Race theory, (etc.).

The people who carried out the genocidal wars against native Americans in the 19th century were NOT “liberals” because they were Conservative Christians who strongly opposed LGBT, feminazism, BLM, CRT (etc.). So therefore they were very much conservative and a Christian version of Taliban and Isis/Da”esh.

The liberals of today (whom I’m NOT supporting or are implying are “closer to Muslims” or “lesser evil”) are largely remorseful of the past persecution of native Americans, at least in their rhetoric anyway. These modern liberals (with their obsession of BLM and critical race theory) denounce the crimes persecuted by the 19th century White Conservative Christian taliban whom Daniel mistakenly calls “liberals”.

Mustafa

My deepest apologies if I came at your comment wrong, I merely thought you were implying that the modern American left was any better than the modern American right. My bad. I think Daniel is referring to liberalism in a very general term referring to western civilization, which begat secularism as we know it, thereby he isn’t saying that BLM and LGBT neoliberals were the ones who committed genocide against the Natives.

Also, as a slight correction, neither of the modern neoconservative or neoliberal movements were responsible for the genocide of Native Americans. Both of these modern movements became what they are today through heavy corporate and plutocratic abuse of gerrymandering/political lobbying in recent years. It was the ancestor movement which this modern political dichotomy you see today evolved from, which was the idea of Manifest Destiny, the idea that the Anglo-Saxon White Protestant Christians were entitled to the North American continent of the US by God as the ‘New Children of Israel’, and that the Native American tribes were godless heathens, thereby have no claim to the land. This was also a policy heavily pursued via Catholic Portuguese and Spanish colonialism throughout South America and Southeast Asia. The book “Pagans in the Promised Land” by Steven T. Newcomb talks about this Eurocentric Christian policy, which appropriated Old Testament law as justification for their actions. The British all throughout the 1800s would pursue colonies all over the world, first utilizing Christian missionaries, then gunboats if they didn’t convert and open their borders for trade. After America completed their Manifest Destiny campaign, they would follow suit in the mid to late 1800s. Your characterization of these conservative colonizers as “White Conservative Christan Taliban” needs a bit of a switch-up, the Taliban are considered pretty cruel by moderate standards, but I am going to say they are nowadays still not on the level of khawarij like ISIS and AQ, and their affiliates. What you should be referring to the violent khawarij as are the self-proclaiming Muslim versions of the historic White Ultraconservative Christian Colonizers. Between Islam and Christianity, Christianity has the higher kill-count and had an earlier head start than the Muslims as they predate Islam, that’s a win that they can keep as I wouldn’t be proud of it if I were them.

Mustafa

Also, have you been to a Reservation? I did time with the Natives and they’ve all consistently told me that the living conditions there are beat the hell up. I’m talking worse levels of poverty than Mexico. You’re looking at unclean water, poor housing and lack of schools, people strung out on heroin, meth, and boozing themselves to death. The reason why things don’t get better is because half of the tribes are for receiving government handouts to build casinos and the other half aren’t, and that other half that aren’t can’t agree on a single thing regarding policy. It is indeed “too many chiefs, not enough tribesmen”

Baz

Muslim skeptic portrays himself as the hardline ultra-Conservative who is opposing what he calls “liberals”. However the facts and reality is that there are some hardline ultra-orthodox Muslims (for example the South Africa-based “Majlisul Ulama”) who are so strict and draconian that they make even the Muslim skeptic himself and his beloved taliban look like “woke secular liberal westernized feminists” in comparison. Here is a list of things that Majlisul Ulama declare to be haram (you can verify this by reading their website).

– photos/videos/TV (idolatry),
– all sports and games, including football and cricket (teshebboh Bill cuffar or imitating infidels)
– all leisure activities and entertainment, including fireworks
– wearing “western” clothes such as suit/tie (imitating infidels)
– clapping,
– microphones in mosques, and reading khutbah from iPhone or iPad (bid-ah in Ibaadah),
– Quran recitation competitions (capitalist commercialization of Allah’s book)
– eating with knife+fork, and/or sitting on chair at table (imitating infidels)
– women driving cars or horses, going to weddings and graveyards, or doing anything other than home lockdown (since it contradicts the purdah nasheen lifestyle based on Quran 33:33),
– Any kind of mixed/co-ed or even female-only institutions outside (including girl’s schools and madrassahs and colleges, and women-only gyms and swimming pools and salons (because they contradict the purdah nasheen lifestyle)
– 100% of ALL vaccines for any disease, (because apparently ALL vaccines are only harmful and good vaccines don’t exist) .
– many types of medical procedures including blood donations/transfusions, husband-wife IVF, emergency abortions to save mother’s life, and organ transplants.

All these things (many of which Muslim skeptic do or halalize) are 100% haram according to Majlisul Ulama. So if you apply the view of “every haram thing must be a punishable crime in a true Islamic/shariiea state”, then imagine if someone who agrees with the views of Majlisul Ulama comes to power ruling over a country or caliphate. They will literally have to make a Genocide and torture and concentration camps for the majority of the population, including even Muslim skeptic, just to try and enforce their “sharia” of everything being haram. The word “Liberal” just means having less social-cultural restrictions, and its opposite word “conservative” just means more social-cultural restrictions. The words liberal and Conservative are not fixed or absolute, but rather they are relative terms, like the words big/small, rich/poor, and left/right. So because Muslim skeptic halalizes and legalizes the abovementioned things that the Oulemaa have declared to be haram, therefore Muslim skeptic are “westernized woke feminist secular LIBERALS ” at least compared to someone else.

Baz

I forgot to mention above that Majlisul Ulama also declared haram women “prostituting their voices” by speaking in public such as on radio or YouTube like what Mrs Haqiqatjou did (because women’s haya/aura modesty includes even their normal spoken voices). And by the way regarding the “all vaccines are haram” fatwa, there are already many militants (who are Deobandi just like Majlisul Ulama) who enforce that fatwa as part of their version of “sharia” by murdering polio vaccination healthcare workers and their police escorts for many years, not only because those mostly-female vaccination workers are “poisoning our children with toxic Western-made chemicals that sterilize our people as part of Western conspiracy to reduce Muslim population” but also because they are “violating purdah” by going outside their home for non-necessary non-emergency purposes contrary to Quran 33:33″.

I’m sure that Muslim skeptic and his fans agree with me that Dr Zakir Naik is a great Islamic preacher, despite him sitting at tables on chairs and wearing suits like western cuffarts, and despite his TV dawah show being based on the idolatry of making pictures of people, and despite his audience imitating cuffarts by clapping for him. Apparently the cuffar westerners think he is “conservative” because he declared LGBT, music and women’s uncovered hair as haram. But imagine if someone who agrees with Majlisul Ulama comes to power ruling a Muslim country as the Sultan or Khaliefa. He will literally have Dr ZN jailed, and/or whipped/tortured or executed for being a “westernized secular woke feminist LIBERAL” since Dr ZN violates the “sharia” of most of the above-mentioned things being haram, so therefore he is “Liberal” because he believes in less socio-cultural restrictions than Majlisul Ulama.

Mustafa

Well, I urge you to cease comparing Brother Daniel to these hardliners. I don’t think the Taliban are his “beloved” either, as many Muslims simply applaud them for successfully winning against a much larger and better armed force. Regardless of who they are, it’s Islamic history documented in our Ummah, and now the record is set in that Afghanistan is truly not one to mess with, given that they’ve historically removed Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British Empire, The Soviet Union, and The United States from their borders. Acknowledging this history in the making does not necessarily mean one is all for them and their actions. Brother Daniel is a conservative Orthodox Muslim, and does his best in keeping the way of اهل السنة والجماعة, are you implying that we should all go by the baseline of Majlisul Ulama? One thing that is halal in Islam to do is to debate and even disagree on certain interpretations of issues that are, of course, in line with Qur’an and Sunnah. Just because one group shows excessive outward displays of religious practice for the sake of making takfir upon others, or to call them jahil, almost makes them similar in conduct to that of the khawarij.

Baz

Mr Muslim skeptic quite clearly supports Tаlibаn (IEA). The proof of this is that he refuses to criticize them or say one bad thing about them or openly disagree with them on anything, despite the fact that there are so many things to criticize about them, all while he criticizes the ruling establishments of other Muslim countries for various reasons. For example IEA is openly allying with that big superpower in the far East who sent 1 million Muslims to “vocational training institutes”, and Muslim skeptic failed to criticize them for that while criticizing other Muslim country rulers for allying with the west or Russia. Muslim skeptic condemns western societies and politicians (such as British Parliament members recently) for getting covertly involved in drugs (much of which is likely from Afghanistan), while he fails to condemn IEA for openly dealing drugs and flooding the rest of the world with drugs. Also Muslim skeptic denounces 5audi for its recent rave concert and invokes the Salafi and Deobandi theory of “all music is haram per se”, instead of condemning only the vulgar aspect of the rave party while supporting non-vulgar music. So why don’t he criticize IEA for criminalizing 100% of ALL music and treating music as a crime including even non-vulgar non-blasphemous music like Nasheeds? Because he supports their IEA domestic music policy, its as simple as that. In other articles in this blog he is defending the unpopular and disastrous Iranian+Afghan and former 5audi policy of forcing all women to wear burka or hijab headscarf under threat of beating up and jail. He never condemns IEA and IS policy of intimidating or forcing all Muslim men to have beard under threat of punishment. Muslim skeptic frequently posts articles condemning women for working in professional careers, and nowhere does he ever express support for women doing anything other than housewife and stay-at-home mother. In another article in this blog he condemns Muslim countries like Abudabi for allowing their Christian zimmies to build churches to meet their Zimmy demands. In another article, Muslim skeptic says that Muslim country governments like Bangladesh must ban social media like twitter, while he himself uses the same platform (which is exactly what Iran’s conservative cleric rulers do too). In his debate against “Apostate prophet” at 33:40 on the video, and on his video “Is Jіhad ONLY defensive” published on June 8th 2020, he is promoting the idea of an Islamic empire invading and conquering a peaceful Liberal nonMuslim country JUST because they decide to have gay clubs or nightclubs, to stop them from living their chosen Liberal lifestyle inside their own nonMuslim homeland despite them minding their own business and not disturbing the Muslims. All of these things that we see from his writings and video sayings prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Daniel Haqiqatjou supports the IEA rulers and their ultra-conservative hard-line draconian harsh cruel domestic policies, which I call “hard sharia” and “Talibanism”, and he supports IS1S foreign policy too (conquer the whole world to force Talibanism down their throats) minus the attacks on innocent civilians. Whenever I raise any of these issues here my comments are always heavily downvoted, which proves that Muslim skeptic’s fans are also pro-IEA ultra-conservative hardline draconian imperialists.

Mustafa

Refusing to criticize a group doesn’t mean that you necessarily support them, what you just did there is put words in someone’s mouth based on your presuppositions. I’m pretty sure that Daniel Haqiqatjou doesn’t support ISIS or AQ, and I’m sure he knows what khawarij are and that those groups aren’t of Islam. You seem to really have something against the Taliban and I won’t hold that against you. Their parent group, the Afghan Mujahideen were funded entirely by the CIA and their very wealthy ally at the time, O. bin Laden (not a conspiracy theory, this information is confirmed and on public domain). While that war was being fought, their kids became refugees in Pakistan and attended the Deobandi madrasas there made them into guerrilla fighters. Deobandism, by the way, is a Hanafi fiqh revivalist Islamic movement from India, contrary to what you’re implying, not all of its adherents are violent militants. I study geopolitics, history, and other phenomena such as the mindset of the terrorist in my downtime, so I know a thing or two about how all this works.

The Taliban initially closed down the opium fields when they first invaded and took over Afghanistan in the 1990s, but later on down the line during the War on Terror, they’d end up being involved in the opium trade themselves, enough to a point where 75% of the world’s heroin came from Afghanistan. However, there is one crucial part that people leave out about US involvement in Afghanistan and that is the fact that, alongside drug kingpins, the biggest drug kingpin that is Big Pharma, or the “legal drug trade”, made a killing off of our stay there. Morphine is an extract of the opium poppy plant and is less potent than its illegal street variant, and it is used as a painkiller in western medicine. My source that served in the military spent time in Afghanistan patrolling and guarding opium poppy fields, awaiting the DEA FAST teams or other government spooks to seize any product that was prepared to be sold. You can assume that, given the nature of three-letter agency work, a lot of shady things occur where that product ends up being sold cheaply to anesthetic manufacturers, who end up turning a profit by selling it at an exponentially higher price to hospitals. As of now, the IEA is trying to wean their addicts off of drugs through their own drug program, and despite the fact that they’ve dealt drugs to fund their war, the biggest profiteer from all of this was still the US. The country that has pushed the most drugs into the entire world was still the US, read Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance, or Alfred McCoy’s The Politics of Heroin.

Addressing your claim that the Taliban banned anasheed, that is actually absolutely wrong, their national anthem is a nasheed without instruments “دا د باتورانو کور” (“This is the Home of the Brave”, you can listen to it on their Wikipedia article). Regarding how you say that he hasn’t criticized the Taliban for seeking ties with China, which allegedly has locked up over a million Uyghurs. Brother Daniel has said his fair share about the situation regarding Muslims in Xinjiang that is being detained in China. Based on the articles he and his staff have released on the situation, he obviously denounces it. Thereby, your assumptions that he supports the Taliban because he doesn’t criticize them end up inaccurately implying that he is somehow pro-China, but we both know that isn’t true.

Pertaining to your statements on hijab and the traditional role of a Muslimah, I concur with Daniel that both Muslim females and males should cover up their awrah and that Allah SWT made men and women the way He did. This issue goes both ways and it reduces fitnah for both genders. The secular neoliberal argument that the hijab is oppression against women is first of all, false because most Muslimahs choose to wear it, and showing off less of their body to others means wearing long sleeves and long pants. Hijab acts as a barrier for both men and women because it, first of all, encourages people to meet the girl for her gifts of character and intellect, rather than simply her beauty, and second of all, it acts as a big sign for men to lower their gaze in the first place. Muslim men and women shouldn’t be looking at people of the opposite gender, both Muslim or non-Muslim, in provocative ways whatsoever, and the hijab/covering of awrah acts as a shield and a deterrent. Critics of hijab just say that men should “control themselves”, but it’s common knowledge that as a Muslim man, you don’t allow your wife or daughter to go out dressing skimpy like most secular women do before they go partying. The main reason why western women do so is for male attention, and that male attention eventually ends in zina, or worse, rape. So it’s better to avoid the fitnah altogether, rather than allow the faintest possibility of it to persist into sin. This is why Muslims aren’t supposed to go to such gatherings as nightclubs and raves, because all of these things that the kuffar do are fitnah, and ultimately lead to sin. In reference to that hadith that’s quoted so often on the issue of music:

From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, “Return to us tomorrow.” Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection. (Bukhari, Mu’alaq, 74:16)

All of these things done together are literally what western countries and now the Arab countries have permitted as commonplace. So, I’ll leave the interpretation of the hadith entirely up to you. Brother Daniel’s condemnation of Gulf Arab countries for the things they do is well-founded, as they live wealthily with their diamond-crusted Lamborghinis, gold toilets, western prostitutes, other trafficked humans, “halal nightclubs and raves”, and cordial ties with the US and Israel, while actively delegitimizing Palestine, continuing to bomb Yemen with American-made missiles, and create more refugees and humanitarian crises for capital gain. Given that you are a fan of the Ottoman Empire’s way of ruling, you should remember that it was these Gulf Arab countries that teamed up with the English to rebel and overthrow the Ottomans, and then a hundred years passed by just so that they could do the reprehensible things that currently they do. They’re unworthy of the land that they stand upon. I also don’t necessarily think that Daniel is saying that women aren’t allowed to work, but he’s rightfully criticizing feminism for its emphasis on women becoming more and more like men, where, for example, men don’t work and women do, or they place emphasis on a career and no kids. Even if a Muslim woman makes more than you, a Muslim man is still obligated to spend on her as that’s the role we were made for when it comes to the human couple. That’s the whole point of the mahr price, to let the wali know that she is in good hands and that he needn’t worry. The main justification for this “no kids” mentality is usually because secularists want to enjoy life themselves without the burden and responsibility of children, they feel like children steal their lives from them. In Islam, there’s no room for a halal sexual life as a single man or woman, so, therefore, Muslims are encouraged to hurry towards marriage because it is the only halal way of being intimate with another person. As I probably don’t need to tell you masturbation and porn aren’t halal, and both men and women have sexual needs and will eventually need them fulfilled. Also, it isn’t only about sex, having a spouse and children provides a kind of happiness that not all the money in the world can buy, don’t knock it til you try it.

I don’t really care what your stance is on hijab, music, gender roles, etc. are, as it’s not my responsibility to further educate you on our deen in common, these are things that one should already know. Your statements regarding what Islam should and shouldn’t look like is your own opinion, and I’ll respect that, but there is a scholarly consensus pertaining to all the issues that you’ve mentioned and constantly scrutinized. Fatwas are often agreed upon by scholars based on what’s most sound with the Qur’an and Sunnah of our Prophet Muhammad SAW. If you have a sound counterargument and feel that you know better than these scholars, then go and have an open debate with them on this issue, I am sure that they’re more than willing to oblige. However, as most people know, Islam isn’t just a religion where you follow your desires and go “fatwa shopping” in order to fulfill those desires, it is a perfect and complete religion of law and justice. For you to refer to Daniel Haqiqatjou, and other Muslims who try and stay on the Straight Path (to include Deobandis and Salafis) without deviating and caving into desires/try to fit into western society, as “radicals” or “wahabbis” who want “Talibanization”, I think that’s a pretty broad stroke to paint those people with. I can’t convince you of what’s right or wrong in Islam, or how Islam should be, but again, going back to your fascination with the Ottoman Khilafah, they, for the most part, enforced shariah/hudud and hijab as well. Yeah, it was arguably more “liberal” than the previous Khilafahs because of their moderate Sufi position but they still implemented shariah and ensured their Khilafah was indeed Islamic. I see your comments a lot throughout this site, and you seem to speak your mind a lot about certain issues. Whatever doubts there are that you have, that’s on you to clear up, and you can make dua to Allah SWT to guide you and clear those up for you, that’s between you and Allah SWT. Honestly, I’m not sure how old you are or where it is you’re coming from, or what creed or madhab it is that you follow, but regardless of all that, I recommend you check out The3Muslims Podcast or YouTube channel. They aren’t scholars but their show is devoted to giving sound Islamic advice and to address contemporary issues that Muslims face, especially the ones you’ve mentioned. Hopefully you’ll find it useful.

Baz

You seem to be putting words in my mouth and writing as if I am some anti-IEA secular liberal when I am not! When and where did I ever say that Daniel is pro-Chiina supporter or a “Wahabi”? Yes it is double standards that he is not criticising the IEA for their open drug-dealing and pro-Chiina policy while he criticise other countries for various reasons. And where when did I ever say that Tali/IEA criminalized male voice Acapella nasheed music? When I said the IEA ban nasheeds I meant things like Sami Yusuf, Maher Zain and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan (those who sing decent songs but use instruments. These are still commonly called “nasheeds”). And why do you accuse me of being Anti-hijab when I’m not!
I was only proving the blatantly obvious fact that MS/Daniel is a pro-IEA supporter which is evident in his writings that are clearly biased in favor of IEA and biased against everyone else, refusing to acknowledge that IEA are at fault for anything bad while making 100% of all blame for everything wrong on only other countries. This is all I was pointing out. I’m not some secular liberal like you seem to think! If you look at my comments on the article “war in Ukraine”, I have described there my vision of an ideal Muslim country called Islamistan. It’s a “moderate” ca1iphate run by “moderate” Muslims with a “sheriiea light” or “soft sheriiea” in the major cities that is acceptable or tolerable to the urban population who are 80%-99% mix of “moderate” Muslims, secular/liberal people and NonMuslims. Soft sheriiea is a decent alternative to full-on secular/liberal rule. The majority of Umma, at least in the cities, will never accept your “nearly everything is haram and crime” IEA version of sheriiea (“hard sheriiea”) and if you try to forcibly shove that down the throats of everyone in the Muslim world cities (let alone the nonMuslim world) then you will get huge furious backlash and violent rebellions which will lead to civil wars and massacres, in addition to driving the people to HATE conservative Islam and sheriiea and become even more Liberal, like what happened in Iran.
Yes Daniel may be “orthodox”On this article comments I pointed out the views of Majlisul Ulama South Africa as an example to show that there are Muslims who are harsher and stricter and more Conservative than Daniel/MS to the point of making him look like the westernized secular liberal feminist woke modernist in comparison. How do we urban moderate Muslims feel when hardline ultra-conservatives try to force hard sheriiea on moderate Muslim cities? The same way how you would feel if people like Majlisul Ulama tried to take over your areas and try to force their “everything is haram and crime” rules on you, including beating you up and jailing you just for having camera and playing sports or sitting on chairs at tables and eating with knife and fork or letting your women go out for non-emergency including even girls schools/medresahs and gyms/pools, all of which Majlis insist is haram. That’s why I bring up Majlisul Ulama, to help you relate to the urban Muslims regarding how they feel when you try to force IEA-style laws on them. If you want the harsh cruel “everything is haram” hard version of sheriiea in Islamistan, I’m willing to support you guys to have your own autonomous regions called “hardzones” (hard sheriiea area zones) scattered all over Islamistan, where you guys can go and make domestic hijra there and impose your hard sheriiea there only inside those hardzone areas, so that you can go and live there happily ever after under your preferred ruling system. The difference between soft and hard sheriiea is that in hard sheriiea, everything which is haram is literally a crime and everything which is fardh is FORCED by the state under threat of punishments. In soft sheriiea everything which is haram or taboo is not a crime and everything personal which is fardh (including praying 5x daily, fasting, and women cover hair) is not forced under threat of punishment, but instead it is only a system based on persuasion and encouraging/discouraging, not coercion and punishments. Like how governments officially encourage people to eat healthy balanced diet, exercise and avoid smoking, but they never jail or punish people who ignore this advice.

Mustafa

I’m not putting any words in your mouth, I’m merely citing the things I’ve seen you comment on this website, and you comment on here a lot.

“…he supports IS1S foreign policy too (conquer the whole world to force Talibanism down their throats) minus the attacks on innocent civilians. Whenever I raise any of these issues here my comments are always heavily downvoted, which proves that Muslim skeptic’s fans are also pro-IEA ultra-conservative hardline draconian imperialists.”

You basically assert that anyone who disagrees with your version of Islam is a terrorist supporter or a hardliner, which paints the majority of the Ulema as such people as well. You can’t expect everyone to think you’re right and they’re all wrong? Your arguments aren’t new and are constantly peddled by the likes of Mustafa Akyol, who is a modernist that thinks the khilafah is outdated.

“Also Muslim skeptic denounces 5audi for its recent rave concert and invokes the Salafi and Deobandi theory of “all music is haram per se”, instead of condemning only the vulgar aspect of the rave party while supporting non-vulgar music. So why don’t he criticize IEA for criminalizing 100% of ALL music and treating music as a crime including even non-vulgar non-blasphemous music like Nasheeds? Because he supports their IEA domestic music policy, its as simple as that.”

You also stated that the Taliban, who are Deobandis, ban all forms of music to include anasheed. Yet, I disproved that by stating that their national anthem itself is a nasheed. I think if the IEA wants to set up its own laws in accordance with interpretations of Islam sound with the consensus of the Ulema, then that is their right because they won the war and they run the country now. If they interpret the aforementioned hadith that music is haram, then they do so to safeguard themselves and their people from fitnah. Neither of us make the decisions there. It is on the IEA and the people to decide on what’s best for Afghanistan, not the US, Europe, or any other country. Thereby, it’s pretty much a non-issue to continue complaining about this. I’m not a supporter of the IEA but they did fight the Americans for 20 years and successfully kicked them out, they get to make the rules in their country, it’s all fair game, that’s how war works.

“He never condemns IEA and IS policy of intimidating or forcing all Muslim men to have beard under threat of punishment. Muslim skeptic frequently posts articles condemning women for working in professional careers, and nowhere does he ever express support for women doing anything other than housewife and stay-at-home mother. In another article in this blog he condemns Muslim countries like Abudabi for allowing their Christian zimmies to build churches to meet their Zimmy demands. In another article, Muslim skeptic says that Muslim country governments like Bangladesh must ban social media like twitter, while he himself uses the same platform (which is exactly what Iran’s conservative cleric rulers do too). In his debate against “Apostate prophet” at 33:40 on the video, and on his video “Is Jіhad ONLY defensive” published on June 8th 2020, he is promoting the idea of an Islamic empire invading and conquering a peaceful Liberal nonMuslim country JUST because they decide to have gay clubs or nightclubs, to stop them from living their chosen Liberal lifestyle inside their own nonMuslim homeland despite them minding their own business and not disturbing the Muslims.”

Again, here you basically are complaining about Brother Daniel’s views on how shariah should be carried out in the realm of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and you continue comparing him and others that agree with him to IS and the Taliban. The truth is when people upvote your comment, they are doing it in agreement with your statements on how there should be a Khilafah, I am pretty pro-Ottoman and anti-khawarij myself. Yet, when they downvote it, it’s because your views on how the Khilafah should look are pretty much in line with what the US government’s think-tank, RAND Corporation, wants Islam to look like: just a bunch of countries, Muslim by name only, entirely at the mercy of the West with the requirement that it needs to become moderate or secular. You say that there should be hudud and shariah, but then you say that it should only apply to Muslims and that non-Muslims living in the lands should be allowed to have nightclubs, casinos, and other haram institutions. What’s next? Gay pride parades?

The line needs to be drawn on halal and haram, and in an Islamic country’s borders, that means the land is ruled by shariah and the people are educated in shariah, plain in simple. If there’s proper education in the individual’s Deen, then there wouldn’t be a need to carry out hudud in the first place. But the shariat is there as a reminder of fear of Allah SWT and the consequences if you do not. Brunei and Malaysia for the most part already do what you are proposing by splitting the courts between shariah courts for Muslims and civil courts for non-Muslims, and even they still capitally punish homosexuality and other sins, because they know that stuff is haram. Your soft shariah isn’t going to be particularly effective in making the image of your proposed Khilafah Islamic. In fact, it’s not going to be any different than these Muslim-majority countries under secular rule. Why even have a Khilafah or shariah if it’s going to be as light as you propose it to be? Contrary to what you think, the Sufi Ottomans weren’t as tolerant or moderate as you might think. I’d recommend reading any primary and secondary sources on how life was in the Ottoman Empire if I were you, it looked nothing like how Turkey or the Arab countries look today. And what you’re proposing is most definitely not the same as how the Ottomans lived because it has no basis in shariah. I agree with you for the most part on how there should be a Khilafah, but I respectfully disagree with your position on how you view other Muslims that don’t have the same views as you on how it should look. I myself am not an extremist or a supporter of the killing of innocent people, Muslim or non-Muslim, but I do agree with the scholarly consensus on how Islam should be established in a country, but because I view it based on that consensus, I am considered an extremist by you. If you think people here downvote you because you think they’re hardliner extremists, then khalas, cease from commenting here since you think we’re all terrorists and that you hold the true Islam in your hands. Quit reading Daniel’s articles if you have such views of him. 90% of the people on here don’t want your “soft shariah”, they want shariah proper, in full accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah. But just because they want that, does not mean they want rule by ISIS, al-Qaeda, or the Taliban, and if you think that shariah proper and khawarij rule are the exact same, then I urge you to go study shariah in further depth. Wallahi, this conversation is over. I won’t be replying back if you reply to this. Inshallah that you can be enlightened in the future, I’ll make dua for you regardless.

Assalamu aleykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. Wa Allah yahdina. Ameen.

Baz

Walaikumsalamwarahmatullahiwabarakatuhu.

No I’m not accusing anyone who disagree with me of being Isis or terrorist khawarij. Instead, it is quite clearly you who is ignoring half the things I said and accusing me of being secular/liberal just for disagreeing with the version of Islam/sharia/khilafa that you and Muslim skeptic (MS) wants, which happens to look near-identical to the domestic laws of taliban and the foreign policy of isis. The only difference is that I understand you and MS don’t support terrorist attacks on random soft civilians or tekfeering everyone else outside their group. But other than that, what is the difference between Isis khilafa and the expansionist empire that MS is openly demanding?

Let’s clarify exactly what I’m saying. I already know very well for many years that Taliban allows and officially uses male voice Acapella MUSIC such as the song that Wikipedia claims is their national anthem. However you ignored the fact that I pointed out that Taliban still criminalizes (which means jailing or beating up people for listening to) NASHEEDS like Sami Yusuf, Maher Zain and Fateh Nusrat Ali Khan who use musical instruments because they refuse to agree with the salafi-deobandi theory that musical instruments are haram per se. So this is proof that they have criminalized ANASHEED. Nasheed means an Islamic song INCLUDING if it has musical instruments.

You cannot deny that the ottomans were big mustache fans, just look at the official paintings and photos of Sultans Selim I, Murad V, Mehmed VI, and Abdul Hamid II before he was sultan. You cannot deny the reality that Ottoman had 100% halalized and legalized music which is why they made the world’s first military marching band, the Mehteran, who still perform today in historical reenactments for tourists and cultural celebrations. Ottomans also allowed Christian zimmies to build new churches. They also had slave women who typically don’t cover head, in contrast to free women. The Taliban and isis would have waged war against the ottomans for these things like halalizing and legalizing shaving and music and zimmies building new churches. This is what I mean by the ottomans being more liberal compared to today’s taliban, isis and Muslim skeptic. I never meant they are liberal like the west of today or like what Rand and maybe Akyol want. Also by the way, just like many other historical Islamic civilizations such as Al-Andalus, they had a huge underground gay scene, since even long before they officially legalized it in 1858.

Now you contradict yourself by acknowledging that I support khilafa+hudood and simultaneously accusing me of promoting the same thing as Mustafa Akyol or Rand Corp. This is a obviously a blatant contradiction. As you admit yourself, Mr Akyol and Rand are against khilafa and hudood while I’m in favor of it. While Rand want the Muslim world balkanized into lots of separate countries, you saw my comments where I have been promoting for all Muslim countries to be united into one big country which is its own superpower instead of being beholden to the west or any other foreign entity. When or where did Akyol or Rand ever support national reunification or hudood (whipping, chopping or stoning) like how I did?

Yes I’m staying 100% within the Quran and sunnah and consensus of islamic scholars. I am well-aware of the sodomy hadeeth “kill the one who does it and the one whom it is done to”. Where did I ever say that I oppose this capital punishment for sodomy or adultery stoning? You are implying that I am halalizing or fully legalizing homosexuality like the west, and you ignored me mentioning the Islamic Sharia conditions of 4 witnesses or quadruple confession (circumstantial evidence not being allowed) to convict for Zinaa or sodomy. I don’t know how Malaysia and other Muslim countries convict sodomy/Zinaa. If they are convicting it by circumstantial evidence like video or DNA test then we have to strongly condemn and oppose that since it is in conflict with sharia that Islamic scholars have agreed to. If they do it only according to the sharia conditions, then in practice no one should be prosecuted for homosexuality at all since in real life no one does homosexuality in front of 4 male witnesses and no one goes to the Qadi to make Zinaa quadruple confession. Yes this leaves legal room for a huge tolerated underground gay+Zinaa scene, as is the case in Saudi and Iran for decades (and in historical Islamic empires like ottoman and Andalus for centuries), because if they follow this sharia conditions properly (conviction only by 4 witnesses or quadruple court confession), then the whipping or stoning for Zinaa/sodomy is more of a theoretical thing on paper which never happens in practice in reality.

I never said the Zimmies should be allowed to have gay pride on the streets, because those streets are full of Muslim passerby. However the haram venues that I suggested they are tolerate to have (bars, pubs, nightclubs) are all inside closed-off areas like the basement of hotels where (as I told you and you ignored) no Muslims are allowed to trespassed there.

If 90% of Muslim skeptic readers don’t want the soft sharia that I’m promoting (which is still 100% staying within Quran and sunnah), then guess what, around 90% of the population of the real world (especially in the big cities) would prefer the Soft sharia instead of your version of sharia which is copying exactly the same thing that has already been tried by taliban, isis, and also Iran and the old Saudi to a lesser extent (I’m not saying that you’re the same people as isis or taliban, but you certainly want to copy their laws). The vast majority of the people, especially urbanites, don’t want that..

Baz

And you totally ignored my proposed Islamistan’s offer to accommodate the ultra-Conservative hardliners by giving them their own enclaves, autonomous regions and purpose-built cities made and designated exclusively for those ultra-orthodox hardliners to live their under their own harsh “everything is haram and crime” system as long as they keep it confined to those areas. So that means I AM SUPPORTING the hard cruel “everything is haram crime” version of sharia in a limited area of the country. I brought up the example of Majlisul Ulama who are stricter more conservative than Muslim skeptic and taliban, because I will be happy to give even them their own enclaves and autonomous regions where they can criminalize everything that they claim is haram. If we can accommodate even them, then we can accommodate people like IEA who are less strict less conservative than them. There is another major difference between my ideas and that of Rand or Akyol, which you ignored.

As for the Afghan Taliban, I (like the rest of the world) reluctantly concede Afghanistan to them, because they have earned the right to rule the country and won by what former Afghan president Ghani called the “judgement of swords” or what Trump lawyer and former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani called “trial by combat”. As I said in my comment under the recent article “Brave Afghan Women” I’m not demanding to abolish Talibanism in Afghanistan. I’m only demanding that it will not be forcibly exported and imposed everywhere else outside Afghanistan and especially in the cities.

Within Islamistan, Taliban can run Afghanistan as an autonomous region or fiefdom within the caliphatean federation, with the maximum autonomy to impose their own laws there, like the amount of autonomy that Ramzan Kadyrov enjoys to run Chechenia as his own personal fiefdom within the Russian federation. The Roosky Khalifa Abu Maria Bilad’Amir Bootin Al-Moscowy is relatively “Liberal” or “moderate” and far less draconian in comparison to Kadyrov, and Putin turns a blind eye to Kadyrov’s excesses even if he morally disagrees with him, in exchange for Kadyrov’s allegiance to Moscow keeping Chechenia as officially part of the wider Roosy-khilafa called Russian federation. So if the “moderate Muslim” president of the Muslim federation (khaeefa of Islamistan) is like Islamistan’s Putin, then the IEA can be the “Chechenia of Islamistan” and Afghan Taliban can be the “Ramzan Kadyrov of Islamistan”. The Islamistani Putin implements soft sharia in most of the country (especially cities) which will keep him the loyalty of the urban moderate Muslim majority, but for Afghanistan oblast he lets Tali get away with doing their excesses of whatever they want there, including even if they want to haramize and criminalize everything, in exchange for declaring that Afghanistan is part of Islamistan, keeping away the worse khawarij zombies like da”esh, and contributing some funds and troops to the wider federation.

Last edited 3 months ago by Baz