War in Ukraine: How Would Muslims Be Affected?

Many Muslims seem to ignore the rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine — and Russia and the West in general. Perhaps Muslims may feel that Ukraine is not a Muslim country and as a result, the situation will not have any effect on the Ummah.

This is far from the truth and there are many ways Muslims would be affected if war were to break out.

Let’s look at some of these issues more closely.

1. Ukraine is a non-Muslim majority state but here too, there is a Muslim population. It is estimated that the Muslim population of Ukraine numbers around 500 000 to a million. That would amount to around just under 1% of Ukraine’s population of 44 million people. These people would be negatively affected by war just by virtue of being citizens. The honor and blood of a single Muslim is sacred. And the suffering of these thousands of Muslims should be our concern as an Ummah.

2. Crimea is a peninsular of Ukraine that was annexed by Russia in 2014 after the pro-Russian government of Ukraine was overthrown by weeks of protests. Crimea has a bigger Muslim population. Here around 12% of the population is Muslim, mostly Tatars. There are reports of systematic oppression of the Muslim minority. Many Tatar Muslims have also settled in the territory of Ukraine in order to escape persecution in Crimea.

3. Muslims also have history in Crimea and Ukraine. Crimea was under Muslim rule from 1313 to 1779 when the territory was annexed into imperial Russia by Catherine the Great. This is thus a former land of Islam just like Spain and India. Muslim Tatars were always persecuted under Russian rule and in 1944 Stalin deported the entire population from their homeland. Thousands were killed during this heartbreaking event of cruelty and oppression. They were only allowed to return years later. A heartbreaking event that the many in the Ummah have forgotten.

There is one aspect of Islamic history in Ukraine as well. The wife of the Ottoman Sultan Selim I was a princess from the Crimean Tatars. Additionally, Hurrem Sultan, also known as Roxelana, was the wife of the Ottoman Sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent. She hailed from Ruthenia, a Ukrainian City along the sea of Azov. Today, there is a Masjid in the City known as the Suleimani Masjid, built in her memory.

4. Ukraine is close geographically to Turkey and this influential Muslim country is already involved to a degree. Turkey supports Ukraine and has been selling drone technology to Ukraine. President Erdogan has also offered to mediate a peaceful end to the crisis.

Turkey is on good terms with Russia, yet massive potential for conflict remains. Turkey and Russia are on opposite sides in Libya, Syria, and Azerbaijan. Turkey is also a member of NATO. Turkey is also vocal on the plight of the Crimean Tatars. The Turks will try to balance relations between East and West, but things could heat up in the event of war. In 2018 for example, after a deadly clash in the Kerch Strait, Ukraine pressured Turkey to block Russian ships from the Bosporus. War would certainly cause tension in the Black Sea and strategic waterways.

5. Syria is another hotspot. Russia intervened in Syria to help Assad against his own people. Today, there are several militaries involved in Syria fighting a multi-faceted war. Russia could heat Syria up to apply pressure on Turkey. Russia might cool Syria as its focus turns to the West. And tensions could increase between US troops and Russian troops who are close to each other in the chaotic area of Northern Syria where both are pitted against ISIS but hardly see eye to eye on most other issues.

Like Syria, similar tension could erupt in Libya, Azerbaijan, and the Balkans, where the geo-political interests of the West, Turkey, and Russia clash.

6. Ukraine is also a wheat exporter. North Africa imports a significant portion of its wheat from Ukraine, and this reliance will increase as the region battles drought and poor harvest domestically. War in Ukraine would decrease these imports, creating food shortages and pushing up prices as well. Social unrest could erupt in these countries if the situation is not properly handled.

7. And then the worst scenario. China and others could join in the conflict, and the war could go global. Could such global war turn nuclear? While this possibility is remote, it’s not impossible. In such a situation, the entire globe would be catastrophically impacted. Thankfully, chances of this are low.

To conclude, we can say that, although Ukraine is not a Muslim country, a war here would have a huge impact on the lives of many Muslims.

May Allah make things easy for the Ummah. May he protect the Muslimeen and guide the disbelievers to the truth of Islam. Islam is the only path to salvation and is a mercy for all of humanity.

Further Reading

The following are links for further reading and more information about the points listed above.

  1. https://www.aa.com.tr//en/europe/muslims-in-ukraine-keep-faith-despite-challenges/11655401
  2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/tartar-ukraine-sunni-muslims-threat-russian-rule-crimra
  3. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/2/18/is-russia-attempting-to-erase-crimean-muslim-culture
  4. https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/crimean-tatars-religious-persecution-made-us-more-strong-and-united-26007
  5. https://gro-intellegence.com/insights/north-africa-wheat-imports-could-jump-as-region-battles-drought.
  6. https://www.apk-inform.com/en/news/1520235
  7. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/13/turkey-russia-ukraine-conflict-military-nato/
  8. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_Suleiman_Mosque
  9. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/05/14/russian=troops-block-us-military-convoy-in-syria-a73890
MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Browder

The current Ukranian regime is run by a genocidal jew and he was put in place- like every Ukranian ruler since 2014, when the CIA overthrew the elected President- by the satanic filth of America.


The current Ukrainian president may be Jew but he is most certainly not genocidal, especially compared to his giant Eastern neighbor country and its strongman leader who has waged the wars in Chechenya and Syria which have cost millions of lives and totally destroyed cities.

Out of the two choices that Ukraine currently has right now (being under the hegemonic sphere of influence of either the West or Russia), I am suggesting that Ukraine is better off with their current status quo (closer to the west but not part of EU or NATO, and therefore not yet under the legal obligation to join NATO wars in Muslim lands or worship liberal fascism’s idol of LGBT) rather than Ukraine joining Рutin’s Russian hegemonic empire and becoming a new Belarus (Russian satellite state) with a new version of Alexander Lukashenko in Kiev.

Remember what Belarus did to our homies (poor Muslim refugees) by human trafficking them with false promise of EU asylum, and using them as a human weapon for his political agenda to get revenge for EU sanctions, and disregarding the value of poor refugee’s human lives and abandoning them to freeze to death in border forests.

Furthermore, Muslims in Ukraine have a little bit more freedom and less repression compared to Russia in terms of both religious and political freedoms (Russia ferociously persecutes Muslims who openly support the idea of khіlafa, while Ukraine doesn’t), which is why many Crimean Tatars relocated to mainland Ukraine after the Russian takeover. So clearly Ukraine is clearly the “lesser evil” and underdog here. That’s why if we can’t be neutral and have to choose to support someone in this Russia vs Ukraine, it should definitely be Ukraine.


I’ve been following this entire situation since its inception in 2013-2014. The only peaceful resolution to this conflict is Donetsk and Luhansk Novorussian Republics being ceded to Russia while Ukraine keeps their sovereignty with a NATO outpost there, they’re already distributing Russian visas and passports in the eastern parts of the country, thereby nobody in the east want to be Ukrainian, let alone Western European. I’ve spoken to volunteers on both sides of the conflict and honestly speaking, this entire revolution was started by the West to turn brother against brother, the same way the partitioning of Yugoslavia was. Try to watch less CNN and MSNBC, or other blatantly pro western news like Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe/Asia, which historically has been used as the CIA’s propaganda apparatuses since the early Cold War. If you ask me historically who has killed more Muslims in a quicker manner/shorter amount of time between Russia, China, and the U.S./NATO, I’m giving it to the U.S./NATO. The U.S./NATO outdo Genghis Khan when it comes to the violence. I’m not saying one darulkuffar is better than another, as they’ve all oppressed Muslims throughout history, but if I were to pick the baddest of the bunch, it would be the US. And please don’t use the excuse that “they take Muslim refugees so therefore they’re good and care more about Muslims”. The U.S. and NATO have overthrown so many Middle Eastern countries that tried to become independent of them, creating millions of refugees that ended up moving to the West (USA or EU), thereby more foreign investors and foreign talent goes to the western market. My short time in the Russian Federation saw Muslims and Christians living side by side, taking care of their elderly, and going to school together, mainly because they have 500 years of shared history. Muslim minority languages are taught in local schools in their respective republics, and Muslims are already at least 1/3 of Russia’s military and Islam is set to become 1/3 of Russia’s religious population by 2050 or sooner. Islamic schools are opening up more and more, and the amount of masajid are also increasing (I think they’re at about 8,000 or so as of now). Albeit, their leader is an oligarch and a dictator, it really isn’t much different than the US leadership; the only difference is that Russia didn’t sell out their culture to corporatism and they also don’t really deny that they’re a dictatorship, while America points fingers at the rest of the world for not being progressive enough, despite being a first world country with very many third world qualities.

There have been Muslims on both sides of this war, Chechen loyalists to Russia helping the eastern side, and Chechen separatist remnants on the western side. If you want to see Malhama, then this is it, brother.


Oh, and hatred toward Muslims in America is much worse in my experience than in Russia. Russia’s already had their fair share of anti-Muslim pogroms, genocides, and conquests. The Muscovites used to pay tribute to Muslim Golden Horde, weakening of that rule ended with the Tsardom expanding, with Ivan the Terrible and other Tsars slowly battling and subjugating Muslims until they acquired the entirety of the territory of Russia as you know it today. Then came the fall of the Tsardom after WWI and the anti-theist Soviet period, which expelled all religions and secularized everyone as Soviet Russian-speaking citizens. The fall of the Soviet Union ushered in a religious revival for both the Muslims and the Orthodox Christians, but since they had all those conflicts against one another for all those years, and suffered side by side under Soviet repression, they learned to continue living side by side under the repressive rule of the RF. Thereby, the Christian and Muslim citizens of Russia have their reservations about each other’s lifestyles and beliefs, but they’ve been through so much that they aren’t willing to draw swords about it, unless it has to do with separatism and/or terrorism. As a Muslim, I have to say that the current ruler of Chechnya is a dictator, but as with the remainder of Russia, there is no alternative that is able to take their place and keep the entire country stable and orderly. Many, including myself, supported the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria of the 90s as justified because of the amount of airstrikes done by the Russians upon innocent Chechens. The sheer carnage of the airstrikes and the war crimes by the infantry made the struggle of the Chechens justified. However, their leadership fell apart and the movement ended up as an insurgency, whose leadership split after certain commanders condoned actions of khawarij via the Beslan and Budennovsk Attacks. Most of their competent leadership were killed by the FSB, or they ended up switching sides (Akhmat Kadyrov and his son Ramzan), thereby the remainder of the independence movement scattered and today’s remnants are either fighting alongside the IS, AQ-affiliated groups, or other smaller armed groups. I’m not saying all the remnants are khawarij, as some simply want to take the fight to Russia without civilian casualties, whether it’s Ukraine or Syria, but the crucial question is whether Chechnya’s independence is even a faint possibility as of now. Certain leaders of Chechen armed groups in Syria have even admitted that it will take a world war against Russia for their independence as an Islamic country to even have a chance of existing, but I’m sure most of us don’t want WWIII.


Don’t forget that Ukraine is NOT in EU/NATO right now, and Alhamdulillah they have never participated in invading and blasting Muslims in Muslim lands, that’s why I back them in their current state against Russia. If Ukraine joins NATO, they will become legally obliged and forced to participate in invading and blasting our fellow Muslims in the middle East, Africa and Asia. If Ukraine joins EU, they will be legally obliged to either become like France (ban Islam and Conservative Muslim culture gradually piece by piece) or otherwise pressure and intimidate our Muslim homies in Ukraine to import and halalize and mainstream in the Muslim community all kinds of unwanted ultra-liberal faahisha filth like Sodomism, Feminazism, Nightclubbism, mixed-sex mosque prayer rows with bare-headed female imams, accepting blasphemy, gay mosque weddings, and so on.

So this is why you and us Muslims should hope and pray for Ukraine to be saved from joining EU+NATO (or let it be delayed as long as possible), as well as pray for them to be saved from being absorbed into the Russian hegemonic empire which has its own different set of problems. That is why Ukraine’s current status quo of today (neither part of EU+NATO yet nor under the Russian hegemonic empire) is the most ideal scenerio and best situation for now, and I wish it can last as long as possible, at least until we get our own true Islamic country (cаlірhаte). If the Russian ummah can have their own Russkiy khilаfa (officially called the Russian federation) led by their own Khaliefa Bilad’Amir Bootin Al-Moscowy (Emir L-Caaphireen of the Roosy Ummah) then we Muslim deserve to have our own “Muslim Federation” led by our own Islamic version of such a powerful strongman like Рutin, AKA Mr Caliph. And by the way Muslims should not support haram nationalism of Chechenia, Ingushetia, Dagestan and Bashkortostan to be independent countries separate from each other or part of Russian federation, instead we should want all of them to become provinces or Oblasts of the future “Muslim federation”.


I’ve personally never supported nationalism when it came to Chechnya or any other Muslim minority republics. Like I said, the Chechen struggle against the Russians in the 90s was entirely justified because of the plight of the Muslims in the region at the hands of RF soldiers and fighter pilots. I agree that Ukraine should not join the EU as well, because that would engender a rather traditional Eastern European country to accept values contrary to their own; I’d say the few countries in Central Europe that haven’t caved in are Poland and Hungary, but they’re mostly right-wing Christians with a pretty negative view on Muslims and Islam. Even as it looks currently, Turkey, which has a lot of Muslim support, is doing a better job of fighting for the Muslims than Saudia, UAE, Jordan, or other wealthy Arab states. Yet, it seems they have an agenda in the interest of NATO and the very NATO-sponsored Pan-Turkic Movement, rather than the interest of the Ummah. Recently, many sources were pointing to the coup attempt in Kazakhstan as Turkey’s doing, yet it seems the majority of Turkic countries would rather maintain ties with Russia and/or be part of the Russian version of NATO, the CSTO, because most of them have a Soviet history and Soviet education, far removed from their Islamic past. Another good observation to take into account is the fact that it’s well known by Turkey that they will not enter the European Union as their chance is about as good as Ukraine’s, plus they have no desire to, I speculate that they’re only staying in NATO so they can maintain some relations with Europe and America’s military, but it wasn’t problematic for them to purchase Russian S-400 missiles and consider purchasing the Su-57 fighter jet. Turkey also is a self reliant arms manufacturer, as we’ve seen the efficacy of their UAS capabilities in Nagorno Karabakh in 2020. Both NATO and the EU are debt traps for 2nd world countries, NATO membership places them into debt so they can have access to the latest weaponry the US has to offer, and EU membership places them into debt to have the latest trade and infrastructure deals accepted by the superstate. Look no further than Greece when they replaced their Drachma currency with the Euro. Given that they can barely stand up by themselves in the EU, I highly doubt Ukraine will be able to either. Muslims ought to remember that Turkey is a secular state, with an Islamist leader, yet he is partaking in this geopolitical game to try and build back Turkey’s former glory from their Ottoman past, thereby remaining in NATO and maintaining relations with Israel, and constant, yet deteriorating, relations with the US. And speaking of superstates, you constantly mention the Ottoman Empire as the United States of Islam, and I do agree with this designation. I think the future Islamic Ummah will probably end up being a multinational Muslim superstate structured like that of the EU/NATO, which will of course include Turkey, the Turkic and Caucasian countries that want to maintain ties with the Turks (so mainly Azerbaijan and Georgia), the minority Muslim republics from Russia that are willing to secede, the Balkan regions that may end up cultivating a Muslim majority (BiH, Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo, etc.), as well as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the MENA countries that haven’t sold themselves to Israel. However, reconstruction of such a neo-Ottoman state will probably require many “color revolutions” requiring Turkish military intervention to restore order. Yet, looking into how quick the CSTO’s response was to the situation in Kazakhstan, I don’t think such a state will come about without a miracle from Allah SWT. Inshallah, I make Dua for such a state to come into existence, yet I also pray that it remains independent of western or post-Soviet influence, and calls its own shots whilst looking out for the Ummah. Ameen.


Also, the Euromaidan Revolution was a US-funded and sponsored “color revolution” carried out by none other than US Department of State subverters Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland. I hate to break it to you, but thinking that supporting Ukraine over Russia in this conflict is going to mean that they’ll stay neutral between the RF and the EU is wishful thinking and toxic optimism. I’m not saying to support Russia either. Muslims again need to be very careful when voicing support for issues such as this because the sensationalist western news media made them feel a certain way.

The success of the US ousting Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian leader, and replacing him with pro-western Petro Poroshenko, and later, Volodymyr Zelensky, already shows the direction the country is set to go in. The western strategy is divide and conquer, even if it means utilizing creating fake national identities and distorting and separating what was once a shared history. Ukraine has become so proud of their new national identity that they activated Neo-Nazi battalions at the start of their civil war, one known as Right Sector and the other known as Azov Battalion. Lots of ultranationalist European and Americans volunteer to join these battalions for combat experience and a lot of them aren’t exactly the best quality people. Two American volunteers went on deployment there, then returned to the States and didn’t have money to go back, so one decided to murder an old couple in a robbery and he is facing criminal charges, the other was either caught with child pornography or solicited sex to a minor, and is likewise, facing criminal charges, and Ukraine let these kind of people join their militias…

The State Department under Mike Pompeo even divided the Russian Orthodox Church, by getting the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I to create the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, effectively changing all parishes in Ukraine to the new label and transferring church authority to the Ecumenical Patriarch’s jurisdiction, when it used to belong to Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. In Orthodox Christianity, there is no pope because churches are autocephalous, thereby no patriarch has the authority to take churches from another jurisdiction. So it’s quite clear that the US achieved in Ukraine what they had previously achieved with Taiwan, during the “2 Chinas” problem. Also, back in 2019, my acquaintance living in Kiev told me that they hosted an LGBT parade there and people were obviously not particularly big fans of such conduct. Despite the majority of the citizens of ex-Soviet countries either being Orthodox Christian or secular, they still have enough fitrah to know that what’s being pushed culturally by the West is wrong.


So what’s your opinion on Russia’s continued support of the Chetnik terrorists that genocided Bosniak Muslims in the 90s and are currently planning another genocide of Muslims as we speak?


Well, Russia is a problem-ridden geopolitical investor like any of the other superpowers in this world (the US and China specifically), and not in any way a savior of either the Muslim or Christian worlds; if I sounded like I was implying that they were, then I’ll clarify that I don’t mean to imply that whatsoever. Their specialty is in treating smaller countries like stocks and investing in the ones that allow it to expand their influence, so they’ll support the Shias here, the Sunnis there, resource-rich Latin American Catholic Socialists, and, of course, their Orthodox Christian brothers by default, because they need to emanate an image as the “Third Rome”, or the major power player representing Orthodox Christianity worldwide. Their whole history and reputation as both an Orthodox Christian nation and the Soviet Union is essentially the soft power it gives to other nations that detest the West. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is a professional in the game of Realpolitik (“politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations”) , given that he’s worked in the KGB during his early years and saw the problems of the Soviet system and its eventual collapse. Niccolo Machiavelli once stated “There is nothing more important than appearing to be religious”, and in the game of statecraft and Realpolitik, world leaders have to play according to these rules. However, everything that I have mentioned pertaining to what Russia does within their borders is based on my personal experience and what I have personally seen them do to ensure public relations with its very multi-ethnic and multi-religious citizenry, and maintain to stability amongst them. Russia is far from an ideal place for a Muslim to live, but honestly, if I were to make a choice, I’d prefer to live in a predominantly Muslim republic within Russia than a big city or college town in America, it’s a major step up from the widespread degeneracy and cultural terrorism of America. Machiavelli also said “There is no surer sign of decay in a country than to see the rites of religion held in contempt.”

If you’ve read my other posts, you’ll know that I am all for justified wars, especially in response when innocents are killed by the kuffar. I’d say the only reason why the Serbs and Russians have any sort of ties is due to their similar culture, language, and, of course, their religious ties. Yet Russia has also sold weapons to both Armenia and Azerbaijan throughout the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, and sent volunteer fighters to aid the Serbs in the Bosnian War. In the bigger picture against the West, they ally themselves with North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and other anti-western authoritarian countries because all they really have is each other against the US Empire and all of her client states. Everything serves a purpose on this big chessboard. Russia only supports Armenia and keeps a military base in the country, so as to maintain an outpost neighboring Georgia and Azerbaijan, keeping NATO member Turkey from invading and annexing the entire Caucasus region. Yet, in the most recent war in Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkey and Azerbaijan waged modern hybrid warfare on Armenia and returned much of the territories that legally belong to Azerbaijan, as per international law. Some say because of Armenian PM Nikol Pashinyan’s rise to power (which was likely western influenced) in 2018, Russia purposely allowed Turkey and Azerbaijan to advance the way they did, probably already anticipating such an escalation to re-exert dependence and confidence from Armenia’s government and people. Everything in this game is push and pull, and despite my reservations against Mr. Putin, I think he’s a man in his element and the Islamic Ummah needs its own leaders with such oversight on the big picture. Relating to the Bosnian War, the US and NATO carved themselves a major political and military presence in Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, and in all the other Balkan countries that pretty much love the West for their support against the Serbs. But the US didn’t do this out of love for Muslims, they did this to supplant Russia’s influence and to shift the balance, having more pro-west countries in the region in case of any future incursions (like the ones we are currently seeing in Europe today). Even if you ask any journalists that were reporting on Srebrenica, you’ll hear accounts that the Dutch UN troops were officially there to supervise the violence in the region, yet many of them knew the systematic rape and genocide of Bosnians was going on, but they would either turn the cheek while being in the same room it was occurring in, or they’d party with the Serbian troops when they got off duty. It goes to show just how much the US, NATO, and the UN really care about Muslims. Since Serbia is a Slavic Orthodox Christian country, the Russian Federation made the obvious choice in letting them know that they have their back, yet many Serbs don’t quite see the kind of support that Putin has given to Syria and Kazakhstan and consider it to simply be sweet talk. Serbia was the nationalist aggressor in the conflict and the US opposed the Serbian war criminals and backed the Bosnians, with the CIA training their military and militiamen, shipping weapons through the US’s Arab allies, and orchestrating NATO airstrikes. Along with US aid to the Bosnians was support from Turkey, Malaysia, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, and even Shi’ite Iran and their Hezbollah, through volunteer foreign fighters, financial support, weapons shipments, and humanitarian aid. So, unfortunately, since Muslims all around the world have no Khilafah or at least a functioning alliance of Muslim-majority countries, they have been caught between the chess game between the USA and Russia, and more recently, China. The most we Muslims usually do is try to help our own people abroad, but the worst part is that we don’t call our own shots, we end up getting used as one of the superpower’s chesspieces whenever we do go try and help, despite the purity of intention.

What’s my opinion on Russia’s continued support for Chetnik terrorists? I don’t support it whatsoever, and I think that Russia’s hands are far from clean themselves after what they did in the Chechen Wars. Likewise, I don’t support the US killing over a million Iraqis and tens of thousands of Afghans these past two decades. I also disapprove of the cultural imperialism waged by the US and Western Europe to change Islam, infiltrate other countries using missionary efforts (Evangelicals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons), and secularize countries that normally have traditional religious and cultural values. With that all being said, I also don’t think everything is so black and white in today’s geopolitical scene because history sets a precedent, but it doesn’t necessarily determine the future if the world is able to learn from it. Russia has erected more than 7,500 masajid since Putin took power, and it doesn’t seem to me like Putin is necessarily supporting Serbia on the sole basis that they’re Christian and that he agrees with their actions during the war, that’s just too simplistic; Putin is like a godfather in office, and his mindset is all about business, with nothing being particularly personal, that’s just the way politics are. It looks more to me that he’s only supporting them out of necessity, as with the other countries he supports that happen to be either resource rich or situated in either a strategic location that benefits them or potentially leaves vulnerabilities that they want to cover. I think the Muslim world needs to stop thinking like a wandering religious community and to start thinking like a civilization so they can finally call their own shots again.


And please excuse my ignorance, I haven’t been keeping up with what’s going on in the Balkans. Have things been escalating there as of recent? I have only seen one CNN article from Nov 2021 covering a potential escalation, but not much else. I’ll look into it, In’Sha’Allah, I don’t really have much love for the way the western media reports things in a sensationalist, or half-truth manner. I definitely think I’ll need to hit up some independent journalists and see what they might know, but beyond that, I’m not too well-versed in the current state of the Balkans, I’m afraid I don’t know anybody from there.


I understand where you are coming from when you say that you prefer to live in Russia over America because of its culture and society being more comparatively family-friendly and their discouragement of LGBT. However the big catch is that you cannot be politically active there or openly promote the idea of sharia or khilaafat there, otherwise you will get falsely accused of terrorism and tortured in their jail like what always happens to that pro-Khilafa group called HizbutTahrir (HT). Whereas in the west it’s the opposite.

In the west its not so easy to stay in a family friendly conservative culture. However, if you are interested in being politically active and openly talking about and promoting the ideas of sharia and khilaafa, it’s comparatively easier to do that in the west (maybe not in France, but at least in the UK, US, Australia, Netherlands and Sweden), and the proof of that is people like Daniel Haqiqatjou, Anjem Chowdary, and HT who openly and legally organize “Khilafa conferences” and pro-khilafa street rallies in their own host western countries whom they denounce while living there, just like how Daniel does the same (so ungrateful to his own host country, biting the hand that feeds him). So both the west and Russia have their relative advantage and disadvantage, so if you have to choose either one or the other it will depend on whether or not you want to be politically active in favour of Islam/umma/khilafa.


Brother, I live in the US and have people that I personally know who were falsely accused of terrorism, entrapped into an informant-led sting operation. They got in trouble for simply sharing a link to Palestine’s publically available resistance group web page(s), being accused of concealing or providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, despite the overall lack of evidence and the fact that these boys just aren’t terrorist material (nothing like IS or AQ supporters or anything like that, they actually heavily dislike such groups). Their families went through extremely tough times and this for-profit justice system shows absolutely no mercy because only the well-off and rich could afford to adequately defend themselves at the federal level. I don’t know how many run-ins you’ve had with the feds, but I know a handful of people who have had the extreme stress and displeasure of dealing with the US’s petty “justice” department. The US FBI has historically sent and still actively sends informants to go fishing for terrorists at masajid all around the country, as well as on Muslim social media meme pages (where one would befriend the Muslim informants who would later be the ones entrapping him). If you believe that the western countries allow Muslim organizations, especially ones that talk about shariah, to exist because of “freedom of speech”, that’s wishful thinking. Free speech only exists in the West when it suits them. The idea of having an Islamic state is already considered radical by western governments’ standards. It’s far from the opposite in the West. They’ll let you keep your organizations up and they’ll let you keep your websites, channels, social media, and blogs up, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get a FISA warrant (FISA warrants operate on reasonable suspicion, not concrete proof: The FBI doesn’t have to prove somebody is a spy or a criminal to get a FISA warrant.) and spy on you out of suspicion that you’re a terrorist. The West isn’t much better than Russia when it comes to talking about Islam and Shariah, in my honest opinion.

Russia at least has a Shaykh al-Islam in Moscow, as well as a Grand Mufti of the Caucasus to serve the Muslim citizens living in the different regions within Russia. These Shuyookh are obviously coordinating with the Russian Federation government in combatting extremism, which was a pertinent problem for them after the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria capitulated into the Caucasian Emirate insurgency and began committing terrorist attacks on innocent civilians. In fact, it’s proven in a study that having more masajid and madrasas means a lesser likelihood of terrorist sympathies. From what I’ve studied and personally observed over the past decade, most Muslims living in Russia have much better representation than in America. We aren’t seen much as strangers or foreigners in comparison to how we’re viewed in America and that’s just an evident truth because of Russia’s many historic exchanges with Islam. Typically, from what I’ve seen of how Muslims get treated in Russia, they don’t seem to get the same condescending treatment that American Muslims do by American atheists/Christians/Jews/Zionists/neoconservatives/neoliberals. Russia is a pretty secular country with many different kinds of people, but they culturally keep to themselves and are pretty tolerant if not also respectful. Typically over there, everyone hangs out with their own respective people/ethnic group depending on where they live, but they still all see each other as fellow citizens, regardless of religion or ethnic group. Russians are much less Muslimphobic than Americans in my experience, and this is even after both Russia and America had awful terror attacks in their borders.

When it comes to the government or nationalist policy, America is much more overtly obnoxious and takes extreme measures against Muslim communities that do very little to stop actual terrorist attacks. Most of the people the FBI catch are people with mental illnesses, and they have informants and undercover agents befriend them and give them the ideas as well as the means to engage in criminal acts. Right as they’re about to do that act, they get arrested by the FBI and then they get crucified on the news as a terrorist, poisoning their chances of a fair trial. Once convicted, the FBI gets more funding from American taxpayers and they continue to chase the next “terrorist” for more department funding. The Russian government, on the other hand, at least understands Islam a bit more because of their shared history, and will only really step in if someone is actually engaging in terrorist activity, sympathizing and pledging allegiance to some khawarij group, or actually talking about waging war against their government. Their media doesn’t necessarily propagate that all Muslims are terrorists, and neither do their churches even (unlike in America). I have seen cases where the Russian government locks people up for stupid reasons, such as simple defiance against the government or dissenting speech. As I said before, they are a self-professed dictatorship. Yet, typically, if someone is engaging in real terrorist acts over there, FSB sends their counterterrorism forces to apprehend them; and usually, they take the body in a body bag. So, there’s obviously a division between the two governments on how they combat terrorism. The US fights a forever war against an idea both at home and abroad, and chases fake cases utilizing informant-led sting operations to justify further funding to their counterterrorism department, while Russia will lock someone up for a pretty long time if they are perceived as a threat to Putin’s government, and will kill real terrorists engaging in real acts of terrorism, because to them, it’s a real threat that they have experience in dealing with in the past. For the most part, I agree with you that there are advantages and disadvantages to both countries, but I think Russians have a lot smaller of a cultural gap when it comes to accepting Islam, therefore it’s easier to spread dawah to them. You can advocate and talk about Shariah and Khilafah all you want in the West but they’ll never sanction it and will likely spy on you to arrest you in the future over something they can get you for. The only time you’ll see America or its western partners speak in favor of Islam is when it serves an ulterior motive, such as taking advantage of the western Muslims’ taqwa in order to rally support for the destabilization of some foreign region that poses a problem for their foreign policy. Otherwise, we’re viewed as nothing but potential terrorists or in Tucker Carlson’s words “semiliterate primitive monkeys”. Westerners think the white man is credited with creating civilization and that because of that, they think they can be blamed for absolutely nothing and that they can get away with anything.

Read up a bit on the FBI’s track record of catching “terrorists”, it’s laughable:

As for the FBI’s post-9/11 viewpoints on Islam and how to deal with Muslims in America, look no further than their training manuals. They say they no longer use them, but their tactics sure haven’t changed in the slightest:

Last edited 10 months ago by Mustafa

Mustafa, i’m sorry brother but you wrong. In Russia you can’t speak about Islam like in US. If you give dawah on internet they will lost you. even in social media you will write “christmas haram” you will face jail. For that all brothers run away or in jail. I see on YouTube mashaAllah brothers talking about Islam openly about any subject, you can’t do that in Russia.

Bill Browder

Interesting. Will you be telling us about how America murdered millions of Afghans, Iraqis, and Syrians out of love, next?


When or where have I ever promoted or implied the idea of supporting US making deadly wars in Muslim lands?

Ismael M

There’s no mention of Russia’s Muslim population, in addition to the fact that Muslims also make up a sizeable portion of the Russian army. This is going to be an uncomfortable conflict for Muslims either way. May Allah SWT protect and guide us all


The entire history of Islam and Muslims in Southeastern Europe, including Ukraine and Crimea, is 100% Ottoman/Turkic, Sufi, and “moderate” Muslim, and 0% Arab or Salafi or Taliban-like ultra-conservative hardliners who believe in “almost everything is haram and crime”. As many people know already, the Ottomans were Sunni-Sufi and fiercely anti-Salafi to the point of making defensive wars against ultra-Conservative Salafi hardliners (the so-called “Wahhabis” whose modern descendants have since become the opposite extreme liberals now) who tried to do the same thing as Taliban and ISIS back then in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

Under Ottoman leadership, majority of urban Muslims at that time, just like today, overwhelmingly did not want such a harsh cruel draconian system where everything is haram and punishable by beating up or jail or execution for so many small things. The Ottomans, who are the source of all native Muslim communities in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, refuse to accept the Salafi/Deobandi docrines of “all music is haram and must be crime punishable by beating up or jail, and everyone must be forced to wear beard and hijab/burka under threat of beating up or jail, and Christian Zimmies must always be forcibly prevented from building new churches, and women must be beaten up just for going out without maherem or having a public life” (like some Ottoman queens such as Roxelana Hurrem Sultan mentioned in this article, who are famous today because they went out and about and had an active public life as the first lady, contrary to Talibani culture). So Ottomans (and therefore the Muslims of Eastern Europe) were what modern people would now call socially “moderate” Muslims for most or nearly all of their history, or at least far less conservative/draconian than modern Talibani hardliners.

By the way I’m not Sufi or anti-Salafi, and I personally disagree with the excessive grave veneration and Sufi making their circle dancing into a religious ritual, and I don’t want any Sufi vs Salafi civil wars because both are our brothers in Islam. The reason why I’m saying all this is because, modern-day ultra-conservative hardliners who believe in Talibanism (nearly everything being haram and brutally criminalized) should not be hypocritical by trying to hijack and misappropriate the legacy of the socially “moderate” Ottomans to push their own new agenda of trying to brutally shove Talibanism down the throats of Muslims and NonMuslims in Ukraine and Europe, since it is both popularly unwanted and it is far removed from the Ottoman-made history, heritage, and legacy of Islam in Eastern Europe.


If it wasn’t for these Ottoman Caliphate (Muslims who are Sufi, “moderate” or relatively liberal compared to the draconian standards of Talibani hardliners, and they considered non-vulgar non-blasphemous music with instruments as halal, accepted clean-shaven men, tolerated bare-headed women in public, did not ban all women working or having public life or going out without family man, and allowed Christians building new churches) then today there would be no Islam or white indigenous Muslim communities in Southeastern Europe, no Muslim countries in Europe like Bosnia and Albania-Kosovo, no Tatar Muslim community in Crimea, and Chechenya and Dagestan would be Christian.

That means without these “moderate Muslim” Sufi Ottomans, Khabib Nurmagomedov would have been an iconic role model hero of Orthodox Christianity instead of being an iconic role model of Islam and Muslim hero that he is today, and the influence of Islam and Muslim presence would be far less in that region than it is today. So dear ultra-orthodox hardline Muslim brothers, don’t invoke the fruits of Sufi “moderate Muslim” Ottoman hard work to drive a new Salafi supremacist anti-Sufi or draconian hardliner anti-moderateMuslim Talibanization agenda in Ukraine, Crimea and Southastern Europe. Even though I don’t agree with all sufi practices, I will still accept the ground reality that Sufi Islam is there to STAY, and so is the “moderate Muslim” culture including tolerating music, clean-shaven men, bare-headed women, and Christians building new churches.


When did the Ottomans ever support “bare headed women” and “clean shaven men”? The Kemalist murtads had to ban beards/hijabs and thats a testament to the fact that both were practiced during the Ottoman era. Did you ever see pictures of the Empire during the reign of Abdul Hamid II? Sufis are actually not as “tolerant/liberal” as you say, and a huge proof of that is the militant Taliban and Deobandis of Indopak and Bangladesh are actually very immersed in the Naqshabandi, Chishti, and Suhrawardy tariqas of Tasawwuf.

Your argument has no basis in sharia and is not even historically accurate.


Yeah, I don’t see how what he proposes is a proper, Islamically-sound Khilafah when what he’s proposing isn’t far off from the secular states that are currently in power over Muslim-majority countries. It seems he basically wants what Mustafa Akyol (a shameless modernist) wants for the Muslim world, which is just Muslim-majority countries keeping their religion to themselves, tucked away in a corner, while still legalizing things that are clearly haram. Basically just complaints with no solutions, or solutions that cave into things that are clearly haram or un-Islamic. I already stated to him that Islam is a religion of submission to God, not one of desires and excuses; the Qur’an is the Qur’an and the Sunnah is the Sunnah, full stop.


When or where did I say that Islam is tucked away in a corner? The country that I propose will give dawah to the whole world and its own internal population to become good Muslims, but without forcing conservative Islamic lifestyle on everyone. I don’t see how what you propose is any different from the failed Khilafah of Isis/Daesh. Unlike you I’m being ultra-realistic and practically accommodating the reality on the ground. The future caliphate of Islamistan will NEVER succeed or stay together in one piece or stay united or stable, if you insist on your flawed policy of making it Isis 2.0 or a bigger version of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Instead it will fail big time like how Isis did, for the exact same reason as Isis (because most urban Muslims and all NonMuslims don’t want to live under the harsh cruel draconian hard sharia where everything is haram/crime.

Please consider the example of Turkey, where a slight majority or large minority of the general population are secular/liberal people who are only Muslim on paper but barely practice Islam and practically live like typical urban NonMuslims (life full of drinking, fornicating, clubbing, etc., and they rarely or never pray). Then there is another large section of Turkish population (Erdogan’s support base) who practice Islam (including praying, fasting hijab, teetotal, etc.) but they “Live and let live” because they are “moderate” Muslims who practice Islam but don’t support forcibly imposing their values, rules and way of life on everyone else (both the “secular Muslims” and NonMuslims) who are not like them. As the commenter Mustafa here said, Turkey is a secular state headed by an “Islamist” president Erdogan. He is considered to be “Islamist” (at least compared to his predecessors) because he and his recently expanded corps of loyal imams, mosques, Islamic schools and religious institutions are ENCOURAGING AND PROMOTING the Turkish population through education, media and fatwas to become good Muslims and practice conservative Islamic lifestyle, and stay away from haram things like fornication and alcohol. However, they are (rightly so) NOT FORCING their conservative Islamic lifestyle on everyone under threat of harsh cruel punishments like what taliban and Isis would have done.

They are NOT making and sending a “morality police” to brutally and forcibly prevent the “secular Muslim” Turks and NonMuslims in Turkey from living a haram lifestyle including nightclubs and bars/pubs (which Erdogan and his imams discourage but don’t forcibly shut down). Imagine if they did make that mistake of trying to do what taliban and Isis did, by trying to force conservative Islamic lifestyle on everyone under threat of beating up torture jail and executions, including beating up or jailing men and women for not having hijab or beard or just for listening to music or watching movies. Then the Turkish people (including even the conservative practicing Muslims who practice Islam but live and let live) would have made and supported huge riots and violent rebellions and most likely civil war, which would eclipse the failed 2016 coup, then Turkey would not be able to stay together as one united stable country because of the arrogant wannabe-Taliban and their ego obsession with killing/torturing the majority of people just for not being ultra-conservative hardliner Muslims.

If you look at Iran, what I have described has already happened for the last few years. The mullah regime is about two-thirds as strict as the Taliban by trying to enforce conservative Islamic rules on an urban secular/liberal majority, for example beating up and jailing men and women just for not wearing Hijab or for dating or for having rave parties in their private homes, or women singing, or people watching some kinds of movies (all of which don’t have any specified punishment in Quran or hadeeth, so are not criminalized in my proposed soft sharia). And because of this, the Iranian urban people have become alienated and disillusioned away from Islam and Sharia (which they now hate), which is why they make a popular liberal uprising every few years.
Similarly, the recent liberalization of Saudi (which is bottom-up just as much as it is top-down) happened for exactly the same reason, because the urban people got alienated and disillusioned with conservative Islam and Sharia because of the previous generation mullahs and morality police terrorizing and oppressing the people in the name of “almost everything is haram/crime”. This is what happens if a ruling regime tries to force Taliban or Isis hardline draconian ruling system down everyone’s throats in cities against the will of the people. Such Taliban-like rulers will only achieve the opposite of what they want, by provoking the people to hate Islam/sharia and become more secular/liberal or even atheist.

In the case of a pan-Muslim caliphate like Islamistan, if you try to forcibly above the harsh cruel Talibanistic draconian hard sharia on everyone everywhere, not only will you drive the urban people to hate conservative Islam and Sharia, but you will also provoke the people to make and popularly support separatist movements to make their local region or ethno-province into a separate independent country from Islamistan. Like how the Soviet Union broke up into lots of smaller countries. If all Muslim countries United into one big country (Islamistan Caliphate) and its federal government rulers tried to forcibly brutally impose the Taliban or Isis harsh cruel draconian “almost everything is haram and crime” hard sharia on everyone in the caliphate’s Turkey state, then it is guaranteed that at least 80%-99% of people in Turkey will support a separatist rebellion to make Turkey an independent country again. So Erdogan and his administration and imams have avoided repeating this mistake of making Turkey like Iran or Taliban, and accommodated the secular liberal Turks and NonMuslims as equal citizens WITHOUT persecuting them for their liberal lifestyle or not being conservative hardliner ultra-orthodox Muslims. Instead, PROMOTING a conservative Islamic lifestyle without forcing it on everyone is a better and more suitable way of “Amr Bill Maaroof wa Nehia Anill Munker” in lands like Turkey where nearly all Muslims are secular/liberal or moderate conservative Muslims who live and let live.

And because of this CORRECT decision, Turkey is still staying together in one piece as a stable United country with no civil war or constant riots/unrest by the urban secular/liberal majority population. So the “Soft sharia” system that I have suggested above for Islamistan is somewhat similar but more intense in following the Quran and hadeeth literally. In soft sharia, the hudood mentioned in Quran such as limb cuts for robbers and kidnappers is enforced, and murder gets Qisas capital punishment (since no one sympathizes with such criminals, including even secular/liberals), and the hudood for Zinaa and sodomy is there legally in theory but never enforced in practice because in real life the strict conditions of quadruple confession or 4 witnesses never happen (which means that Islamistan will have a huge underground scene of lots of mostly NonMuslims and secular/liberal Muslims enjoying dating and all kinds of consensual sex outside marriage and never get punished for it, because they never do it in front of 4 Muslim male witnesses and they never go to a sharia court to admit Zinaa in a quadruple confession. Of course we don’t like this haram underground scene but it is an inevitable ground reality that cannot be stopped or eliminated). And in Soft sharia people are not persecuted for doing things that are taboo in conservative Muslim culture or smaller haram things for which Quran and hadeeth don’t specify any punishment. Instead those things are only officially discouraged like the “smoking kills” label on cigarettes. The Soft sharia state says in its public morality advice propaganda “Dear people, we advise you to not do these smaller haram things, but if you ignore our advice we’re not going to punish you or forcibly prevent you. Instead, only you bear the consequences for your sins in the afterlife or maybe even in this life by divine punishment.”

If some people ignore the official morality advice from the state and do those things anyway, leave them alone because the state has already done its “Amr Bill Maaroof wa Nehia Anill Munker” job of ADVISING them to not do those things, that’s more than enough. You’re not going to hell anyway for the sins of other people whom you already advised to stop their sinful lifestyle. So in this way, Islamistan soft sharia rulers don’t persecute secular/liberal Muslims or NonMuslims for not living as ultra-orthodox Muslims, and therefore they are accommodated as equal citizens or residents, and therefore they won’t be provoked to hate Islam more and make popular secular/liberal rebellions against sharia. Those ultra-conservative hardliners who want the stricter Taliban-style harsh cruel draconian hard version of sharia should be happy with the special autonomous regions and purpose-built cities all over the country that have been specially allocated for them by the moderate Muslim Federal government, exclusively for Talibanized hardline ultra-conservative Muslims to happily live their dream lifestyle in and enforce their hard sharia there. They will be allowed to build more of these hardliner autonomous regions and cities throughout the country as time goes by and their hardliner population increases. Does any of the “modernists” like Mustafa Akyol that you accuse me of being like, support a system of accommodating hardline ultra-conservatives to have their own autonomous regions where they are allowed to haramize and ban everything? Therefore with this multi-sharia system, Islamistan will inshallah stay together as one united stable country with less unrest or civil war or separatist rebellions compared to if Islamistan tried to do what you suggest which is to repeat the mistakes of what taliban or Isis did.


Nowhere did I ever insist on it to be ISIS 2.0. I’m against ISIS and other khawarij. Stop putting words in my mouth, and please check your cognitive dissonance. For the last time, strict implementation of shariah =/= ISIS and other terrorists. I’ve made my point clear on other replies to you. Khalas.

Last edited 10 months ago by Mustafa

You keep conflating what I propose as IS or Taliban support when you don’t even really know my proposal of how a Khilafah should be run internally. I agree that it shouldn’t be a fire and brimstone presentation of Islam and that the way Dawah is given should attract non Muslims to become interested in Islam. You keep oversimplifying in that everyone who disagrees with you is IS or Taliban support, which is a false conflation in and of itself. I think what you propose is realistic and doable for the most part, as I said most of the Muslim majority countries that look out for Muslims’ interests despite having secular or dual systems (Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar) are already trying out models of government for a Khilafah that could fit in the 21st Century and beyond. Those five countries I’ve mentioned have already formed a coalition separate from the OIC, as a sort of Muslim Union, so if we want a Khilafah we have to work with what we have and that’s a start. But what I’m simply stressing is that the Qur’an and Sunnah still need to be stressed as the bread and butter of it all, and the Khilafah can’t afford to deviate from it, and this means lessening haram in society through proper implementation of Islamic education and proper public relations between the people and government ;I.e. encouragement away from haram and towards the Qur’an and Sunnah, and this does not mean rampant killing of sinners. We hate the sin, not the sinner in this religion, and people will be given chances to repent for whatever it is they’re accused of. Most capital punishments in shariah are done after witness examinations and a chance for defense. In this day and age, even secular countries like Turkey could have be secular by name but Islamic in practice (as you can see when one goes to Istanbul or Konya during Ramadan).

Read more into Shariah in comparison to the U.S. legal system:



When I say Isis or Talibanism, I don’t mean those two organizations themselves but rather I mean their restrictive laws and domestic policies unnecessarily haramizing and criminalizing so many things, for example: banning all music and movies per se, and beating up or jailing men for not having beard or trousers above ankles or not always attending mosque or jemaat prayers, or beating up or jailing women for not wearing burka or covering hair, or for driving or doing many male-dominated jobs or hobbies, or jogging in the park, or going out without family man, or beating up or jailing men or women for singing or doing non-sexualized folk dance like Dabke or for socializing with opposite gender friends at Cafe or dating, or for getting tattoos or having pet dogs. These are kinds of things which are either small haram things or taboo in ultra-orthodox Muslim culture of rural/tribal areas like Helmand or Fata. The Quran and sunnah/hadeeth do not specify any punishment for any of these things, why? Because it is not necessary to criminalize them everywhere! Not everything which is haram in Islam must be a crime punishable by an Islamic government under sharia, and not everything which is fardh in Islam must be forced on everyone by the state under threat of punishment. All those Muslim countries that you mentioned as examples are far-removed from talibanism and are currently ruled by “moderate Muslims” who don’t criminalize the things I mentioned above, especially for NonMuslims for whom those things are part of their culture and customs. They all legally allow their nonMuslim residents to do dating, drinking and clubbing without persecuting them for living according to their cuffar culture. We want nonMuslim countries like the west to return this favor by not persecuting their minority Muslims for rejecting liberal lifestyle and living in a conservative orthodox culture. I know you got that diagram from HizbuTahreer (HT) because I used to be a fan of them over a decade ago when I was more conservative-minded than I am now. My support for new khilaafa remained (for me this is a patriotic cause or what you may call “pan-Muslim nationalism” or “Caliphatean nationalism”), however i stopped supporting HT 7 or 8 years ago because I started disagreeing more and more with them, since they also want to impose a harsh cruel domestic law of the state criminalizing most of those things I mentioned above, in addition to centralizing everything at the top like a Muslim Soviet union with a “one size fits all” uniform set of laws everywhere, and no autonomy for any local areas to make their own laws to fit their own local culture. HT is only a little bit less strict than IEA/IS (in fact they are like a Sunni version of Iran mullah rulers) because they halalize and legalize music, clean-shaven men, women’s faces in public, women driving and working in male-dominated jobs like military, engineering and police, and female judges. HT also ludicrously claims they are against democracy but still support popular ballot box elections every 5 years to vote for MPs who fit in the “Majlisul-Ummah” in the diagram that you show, and a ballot box popular general election for khaliefa (which I don’t support because it is not realistically practically logistically feasible over such a huge diverse country that spans half the world). Like every other “Islamist” group, HT arrogantly thinks there is such thing as only one version of sharia which is their own version. I strongly disagree and believe there is more than one correct version of sharia, and we can have all these very different versions of shariiea in different areas of the same country. Why don’t you consider the example of cigarette smoking that I considered, with a ban on advertising smoking and the government spreading anti-smoking ads everywhere and teaching anti-smoking lessons in schools? That is exactly how I suggest all those things I mentioned above should be treated, not as a jail-worthy crime like murder or robbing which is what IEA, IS and HT want. Jailing or whipping or executing people for smoking cigarettes is too harsh and cruel (which is why the government only discourages it without criminalising it) and likewise within the urban big city culture it is the same with all the other things I mentioned above. Yes you can give education to the whole population, but like what happened with cigarettes, the education will only go so far. The majority of people will be convinced and follow the advice given in the education, but there will always be a minority who decide to ignore the official advice and carry on doing that thing which is officially discouraged. After you already given them the morality education, just leave them alone and let them suffer the consequences of their own bad decision, instead of tormenting them further with your unnecessary beating or jailing which is only going to provoke them to hate Islam/sharia further like what happened in Iran.


I’m not a supporter or follower of HT, but this diagram for a Khilafah was probably the simplest one I could find to put things into perspective for the structural side of things. I agree that Shariah took different forms, some more or less strict than others, throughout the different Caliphates and dynasties, but nothing changes the fact that the Qur’an and Sunnah are the backbone of a Shariah system, and that proper implementation of Shariah is crucial to the Khilafah in order for it to even be called one in the first place. There’s a misconception that I also want to clear up: even if we get our Khilafah back, it won’t solve all the problems of Muslims around the world, but give us an entirely new set of problems to deal with, these include learning to not repeat mistakes from the past that have hurt the image of Islam as a whole. So again, I’m not saying that a “moral police” needs to come out and recklessly punish individuals for straying away from the Straight Path, and I agree that if you try using Islam to squeeze someone too hard, you’ll end up pushing them away or making murtadeen. I agree that there needs to be a balance of fear of God in the people/respect for shariah as well as enough tolerance to get people interested enough to want to stay living in Islamic lands. However, I will disagree in that I believe that the clear haram things (alcohol, illegal drugs, Zinah, nightclubs, raves, etc) ought to be criminalized so that the society is already heavily discouraged from doing those things in the first place. You mention the modern education about cigarettes, and I will add to that the education pertaining to illegal drugs: people are still going to do it if you ban it, but sometimes the only way to get the message through to people is by making an example out of the serious offenders. Your proposal is basically to leave Muslims to their own devices while encouraging them through their respective educations, which is pretty much what is already done in the secular state of Turkey, and I still don’t see how what you propose will keep its Islamic identity unless you could further fill me in regarding how you’d defend the lands against LGBT, feminism in all forms, critical race theory, and foreign religious or political missionary efforts. If you could edify me about how you’d do it, especially pulling from historical precedent in line with Shariah, then be my guest…


It seems that you don’t get the points I’m making unless i repeat it a few times. If you go back to the last week “Monday Memes” where you said “Wallahi this conversation is over” (and now you flipped to tell me here “be my guest”) there I have already explained there some of the things that you requested. If you want to reply me I prefer you do it there instead of this page.
As for the thing called “critical race theory” that you mentioned, that is something which I honestly don’t understand what exactly it is or what to make of it (since we don’t see it in the media or politician talk as much as other things like LGBT and feminazism), so I don’t have any views or suggestions regarding that. Maybe it’s because CRT is a thing only in America (where I don’t live) but it’s not an issue in the rest of the world.

As for HT, they were founded in 1953 and went through their childhood growing up phase (when they developed their foundational literature and proposed state policies) in the 1950s to 1970s during the height of both Arab nationalism and C0mmun1sm (I see the clear influence of both ideologies in HT policies which I have read on their websites and brochures for years) but before the mullahs took over Iran. Since 1979 until now most of HT’s proposed domestic policies have already been tried out in Iran (the Iran constitution even implies that their Supreme leader is the “leader of the Ummah” without directly calling him Khaleefa). So we already know that a HT-ruled Khi1afa will turn out to be an epic disaster with the majority of the urban population becoming secular liberals or privately leaving Islam for other faiths or atheism and secular ethnic nationalism, making a liberal uprising every few years, and unlike Iran there will no doubt that the HT-ruled de facto Arab nationalist Muslim soviet union will soon develop plenty of ethnic nationalist separatist movements which will tear the country apart to pieces with popular support of the majority of urban locals. Many or most urban Iranian women have become fed up with Islam/sharia and hate it now because they are seriously pi55ed off from decades of being constantly getting harassed, intimidated, beaten up, jailed and even spat in the face by morality police thugs and vigilantes, all just for not wearing fully covering their head, or having makeup or nail polish or tattoos or chatting with a guy at a Cafe.

And all this popular disillusionment with Islam happens when HT and Iran are only half as strict/draconian as Tali. So imagine how much worse IEA will make the Afghans in relatively moderate places like Kabul, Herat and Bamyan, whose people will turn out to become the worst atheist Islamophobic apostates (and potential moles of Zi0 enemies) in a few decades time if Tali don’t change now and severely moderate themselves. At the very least, if Tali want to keep an “everything is haram crime” system they should only do that in the rural and tribal ultra-orthodox areas like Helmand and Nangarhar, then let the relatively moderate areas like Kabul, Herat and Bamyan become autonomous regions which are allowed to have their own separate laws which tolerates most of the social things that are haramized and criminalized elsewhere in the hardline ultraconservative rural tribal areas of the same country.


Go back and read my comments above, where I have already mentioned some details that you seem to have ignored. Especially the multiple-sharia system detail about how I’m NOT actually against hard Sharia (the IEA/IS-style harsh cruel draconian “everything is haram and crime” system) per se. I want Islamistan to be a country where we will have BOTH types of shariiea coexisting peacefully alongside each other in different parts of the same country and even within the same city, so that we can make everyone happy and comfortable (both the ultra-orthodox hardliners and moderates and NonMuslims). Imagine that Islamistan is like a chessboard. The black squares represent the ultra-orthodox areas like Helmand and FATA where over 90 to 99% of the locals are hardline ultra-conservative Muslims with Talibanistic mindset of “everything is haram or taboo so we won’t allow it here. In those areas (black squares on chessboard) hard sharia is the local law of the land. The white squares are cities like Istanbul or Dubai or Beirut or Kuala Lumpur where 80 to 99% of locals are the typical urban mix of moderate Muslims, secular liberal Muslims and NonMuslims, so in these areas (white squares on chessboard) soft sharia is the law of the land. Islamistan is officially one country with one nationality and citizenship and one president (khaliefa) but if you travel around there to visit both the hard and soft areas, it feels like Islamistan is actually two or more countries (one country for the hardliners, another country for the moderates) stapled together into one country, because as you travel from a hard zone. If you are a woman you will especially feel the difference, because in the hard Sheriea areas she is banned from everything while she crosses over into the soft Sheriea areas and she finds herself able to go out alone, bare-headed and able to drive, and work in nearly all jobs and able to jog in the park whereas she would be beaten up black and blue by the local morality police or vigilante thugs for attempting any of that in the hard Sheriea area.

Islamistan is not partitioned along ideological lines into a North-South or East-West divide like Korea and formerly Germany. Instead, Islamistan’s ideological apartheid partition is like a chessboard because it is partitioned into a patchwork of these soft zones (white squares, like Istanbul or dubai) and hard zones (black squares, like Kandahar or rural Yemen) which are right next to each other and evenly scattered all over the country. That means if you’re a hardline ultra-conservative and you find yourself in a white square (soft zone city full of moderate Muslims, secular liberals and NonMuslims whom you find it very uncomfortable to live alongside) you only have to move a few kilometres away to the next county or a town outside the city to a hardzone area to live under hard sharia surrounded by ultra-orthodox hardline neighbors. If you’re an ultra-orthodox hardliner in a white square you don’t have to relocate for hundreds or thousands of miles to the other side of the chessboard and learn a new language or adapt to fit with neighbors of a different ethnicity in order to live under your preferred hard shariiea, when the hardzone is very nearby in the next black square. The IC Federal capital will undoubtedly be in a white square, not in a black square. The moderate Muslims and NonMuslims (let alone visiting foreign diplomats, national leaders, delegations and journalists) will struggle to breathe in an IC federal capital that is located in a black square, especially visiting foreign female heads of state who will not accept their face and identity being hidden behind a burka on an official state visit to Islamistan federal capital if it was in a black square city like kandahar. Unlike the Indian reservations in America which are severely neglected by fed gov, we hope inshallah the moderate Muslim IC gov will pour billions of investment into the hardzones in the black squares to develop them and make them decently prosperous so that their hardliner locals won’t get angry and unleash their anger on the moderates by invading the white squares to cause a violent nuisance there like how they did in Islamabad 2007 Lal masjid insurrection or 1979 Mecca mesjid-L-haram insurrection.

As I said already, I never ever supported the formal legalization of Zinaa because I’m careful to avoid breaking what Quran and hadeeth directly say. Instead, I insist on the sherieea conditions for conviction which are so restrictive (you can read them on Oulemaa website such as IslamQA) that what the western liberals call the “death penalty for being gay” and the stoning for adultery and 100 whiplash for fornication, are DE FACTO VOLUNTARY and effectively nothing more than legal theory on paper which is never implemented in practice. That’s what all the Oulemaa and apologists like Muslim skeptic have totally failed to explain. And they have contributed to worsening the reputation of Islam in this way because of their failure to explain it this way. So because of this reality (the Zinaa/sodomy punishments being effectively voluntary and legal theory on paper which is not done in practice) this means that Islamistan (at least the softzones in the white squares populated full of NonMuslims and secular/liberal Muslims) will 100% have an underground scene below the surface of plenty of people enjoying all kinds of dating and zinaa/sodomy and they are never punished for it. As for the LGBT ideology (as opposed to people just doing the gay relations in their underground scene), the IC can just do what Russia did (not give municipal permits for pride parade March on the streets, refuse to recognize gay marriages, and have a law to ban the PROMOTION or PROSELYTIZING of LGBT ideology, rather than cracking down on the homosexual lovers themselves. It is similar to how the governments ban the advertising of cigarettes but don’t crack down on smokers themselves.

Even if the soft sherieea government bans the official nightclubs then we know from the experience of Iran and Pakistan that urban people will simply make a new industry of nightclub rave parties in their private homes and mansions (informal nightclubs in people’s homes). I also know from the experience of gulf Arabia that some Arabs in white robes will also set up huge Bedouin tents in the middle of the desert where they have a unique Arabian-style nightclub party called Maalaya معلايا where they have dancing girls twerking in burka (you can see the clips of this on YouTube). Iran made the mistake of relentlessly raiding people’s privacy in their homes and whipping or jailing people for these house rave parties, and that was one of the factors which contributed to Iranians hating Islam/sharia, while Pakistan and Arabia don’t raid people having these parties in their houses or desert tents, so no wonder there is less disillusionment from Islam there. So inshallah the IC soft zone authorities better not repeat Iran’s mistakes, and instead they must respect people’s home privacy and leave the nightclub/rave parties alone if they are done in private homes or opaque desert tents, as long as the partygoers are careful to make sure that what happens inside is not visible or audible outside.


Well, that makes a lot more sense than what was initially presented. I had a change of heart upon reading more of what you wrote and wanted further elaboration. For the most part, I’m not entirely against the idea of enclaves for the different kinds of people living in the Khilafah. Despite any disagreements in approach, have you ever considered making a website or a blog with diagrams and sections describing your proposals? And then send what you have to the likes of Ovamir Anjum and other esteemed Muslim scholars? I’m sure they’ve had this talk about such proposals before about how a modern Khilafah should be run but it never hurts to refresh their memory and bring up the subject anew. Maybe you should consider it as this kind of discourse would be more valuable there than here. You clearly have a knack for writing and brainstorming your ideas, so you should start a WordPress or a some other blog platform and reiterate all that you’ve stated on MS’s website and share it with those you want to present these ideas to.

I, by no means, wish to come off as condescending in any way in this little debate of ours, but I was just under the impression that you viewed the more conservative Muslims as extremists simply because some of them support shariah the way the IEA have it. My response was simply to say that just because Muslims follow the Qur’an and Sunnah and try and keep to the Siratul Mustaqeem as best as they could doesn’t necessarily make them extreme. You’ve clarified that you’re not entirely against hard shariah as many Muslims would want it, but that you’re proposing allowing the different kinds of Muslims to have their own enclaves, which is actually reasonable. However, how that will turn out also depends on the leadership and other character qualities of the Caliph, which we haven’t touched upon. I do agree with you that if IEA or the future Khilafah want to thrive, they’ll need to loosen their grip, yet still do so whilst abiding by the Quran and Sunnah. So, for the most part, I agree with you and just wanted clarification on a certain few points.


I don’t know what you mean by “all forms of feminism” since feminism is a huge broad and arbitrary subjective issue which can be interpreted any way. “Feminist” is a relative term which means giving women more rights compared to someone else. Saying someone is a feminist is like saying someone is big or small or rich or poor, it only makes sense if it is relative to someone else. So therefore some Muslims like Majlisul Ulama South Africa (the ones who declare everything to be haram) could argue that even IS and IEA are “feminist”, because they halalize and legalize women doing some things, such as IS having female morality police brigade, and IEA allowing women to go to some shrines, and IEA leaders also claiming that they allow girls to go to school. Majlis Ulama could also argue that Mr Haqiqatjou is a feminist because he allows his own wife to appear on camera to show her hands and eyes and speak to millions of people including men. He also believes is halal to have girl’s schools which teach conservative Islam (meaning females violating the purdah nasheen lifestyle by leaving their home isolation). All these things are outrageous and unacceptable violations of Islam/sharia from the point of view of the most strictest most conservative Muslims like Majlisul Ulama South Africa and many of the mullahs in Pashtun Tribal areas who have the “everything is haram so must be banned” mindset. As you saw in my other comment, I already support a chessboard or checkered system where women are supported to do almost everything in the white square areas (especially the big cities) and simultaneously banned from doing all those same things in the black Square areas like rural tribal areas (banned from everything except housewife, stay-at-home mother, wearing burka and private religious worship). So we have both opposite contradicting systems coexisting in the same country, and everyone can choose which system they want to live under.

Now let’s answer another question of yours.
How does the Khi1afat-e-Yehoodia (the country named after prophet Yaqoob alyhisselam) keep their Jevvish identity despite their country being demographically and politically dominated by secular liberal juice? One reason is because they are the ONLY Jevvish country in the world. Another reason is Because they have officially defined themselves as the “nation-state or national homeland of the Jevvish people” and they have a Law of Return which lets any juice from all over the world get their citizenship and passport straight away from day 1 just by being a member of the country’s official religion, meanwhile the indigenous gentile natives of the land (who name themselves after an ancient pagan tribe) are treated as foreigners who either need a visa or work permit to live there in their own native land as Zimmies (expats) or they are kicked out if they violently refuse to accept the existence of the juice having their own Jevvish Khi1afa.

Now I’m not saying that our country IC will treat its Zimmies as badly as how Khi1afat-e-Yehoodia treats their own indigenous gentiles, however we will have a similar system where the IC is defined as the “national homeland of the Muslim people” with our own law of return which grants IC nationality to all Muslims in the world, and IC citizenship and passport to any Muslim from anywhere who applies for it. Those who are not Muslim can only live in the IC as Zimmy, which is the same thing as modern day expats, so they can only live in the country on their foreign passport and valid residency visa for which they pay jizia (visa fees to renew annual visa), including even if they are “aboriginals” who are native to the land. The aboriginal zimmies may be granted a green card or permanent residency visa for their native IC state/province by virtue of being native to the land (unlike the immigrant zimmies), but they will always still legally remain foreigners compared to IC citizens (Muslims). Because they’re all foreigners, they can’t do the jobs that countries usually allow only citizens to do, such as many jobs in the government, diplomat, minister, mayor/governor, many higher ranking jobs in the military, police, judiciary and so on. That system of giving citizenship only for Muslim and foreigner status is one of the biggest ways in how IC keep its Islamic identity (including even if Muslims are minority), even while comfortably accommodating secular/liberal Muslims as equal citizens, and without having to impose harsh cruel draconian laws on everyone everywhere. Another way how the IC should TRY to keep their Islamic identity is (like how Khi1afat-e-Yehoodia keeps their Jevvish identity by being the only Jevvish country on earth) is by the IC trying to become the ONLY Muslim country in the world (through national reunification).

Last edited 10 months ago by Baz

When I say feminism in all forms, it is merely in reference to it in the western context as it’s propagated, because the word “feminism” is of western origin, and is therefore a western idea which made its way into modern politics as a political movement. It was first about gender equality and the right to vote, and now it’s about how women don’t need men and should stay unmarried and chase careers instead of having the responsibility of starting a family. 3rd and 4th wave feminism basically are vengeance upon “the patriarchy” in that it encourages women to strive to have more rights than men or to be men themselves. Regarding roles of women, I’ve nothing against Muslim women doing things whatsoever: Khadijah bint Khuwaylid RA was a successful businesswoman and Muhammad’s ﷺ first wife and follower, and Khawlah bint al-Azwar RA is the exception to the rule when it comes to woman warriors. I simply hold the more traditional view that the majority of women are typically better at doing the things that women normally do, just as men are typically better at what they do. Yet, men and women both need each other when it comes to families, as men and women both serve their respective roles in raising children. So yes, I believe in gender roles in a very uncomplicated way. I don’t think Daniel Haqiqatjou is a feminist for doing or supporting all those things because being a feminist entails supporting the movement’s postmodern drivel. Prior to the movement, gender roles were more or less a non-issue.

Also, I just wanted to clarify that I’m not Daniel Haqiqatjou, and I’m not of Majlisul Ulama, so let’s try not to take out whatever it is you have against them on me because I don’t represent either of them. I’m just a passer who comes here to read Daniel’s opinion, some I agree with, some I do not, but I think he’s doing a wonderful job of clearing the modern Muslim’s doubts about his or her faith in this postmodern world; in fact, he’s one of the reasons why my own faith was strengthened. Typically when it comes to returning Muslims en masse to their faith, they have to go by a precedent and that precedent is based on strict orthodox observance of the Quran and Sunnah, however, our Prophet ﷺ has stated to not fall into extremes in practice.

From SeekersGuidance:
“Among the prophetic narratives that promote moderation and prohibit extremism and excess are:

The Prophet (Allah bless him) stated, “None makes the religion difficult except that it overcomes him. So, aim for what is right, stick to the moderate way…” [Bukhari, Sahih]

Ibn Hajar in his Fath al-Bari quotes Ibn Munir as stating, “In this narration is a sign from the signs of prophethood for we and those before us have witnessed that every excessively immoderate person (mutanati`) in the religion is cut off. The purpose [of this narration] is not to prohibit seeking perfection in one’s worship since it is something praiseworthy.”

The Prophet (Allah bless him) stated, “Beware of excessiveness in religion for those before you only perished due to excessiveness in religion.” [Ahmad, Musnad]”

In my personal opinion, Daniel’s criticisms of what’s wrong with the Ummah today are well founded because more people care about fitting in with the modern world by secular standards than they care about their Deen. Calling him a hypocrite with double standards simply because he does what he does yet isn’t like Majlisul Ulama SA isn’t really right because 1. he isn’t part of Majlisul Ulama SA 2. he doesn’t particularly endorse their exact level of strictness in practice (at least that’s not what I get out of his videos and articles) and 3. his intentions are pure in that he wants Muslims to be stronger in their faith in this world where everyone and everything makes you question your faith. If you want to debate MS or his staff, again, I’m sure they’re more than willing to oblige you.

As for your comments in regards to the future Khilafah and Israel’s modern state structure. I see where you’re coming from in structuring the citizenship model that way and I’m again agreeing that that would be effective in keeping the state’s Islamic identity. To detract a bit from our current conversation, look at the flip side of things from their perspective, I think it’s interesting how in Israel, they don’t allow interfaith marriages (Jews can’t marry non-Jews) and their media covers up the demographic of Israelis converting to Islam after spending time in the Palestinian regions, or how their far-right Lehava harasses families that undergo such conversions from Judaism. To be honest, if Israel allowed interfaith marriages, and more people were to find out that Zionism as a political movement started in Europe in the 1800s and has greatly revised history to create the narrative of a Jewish land for Jewish people, I don’t think the state would stay “Jewish” for long. If it were a real democracy, there’d be so many more Muslim and Christian citizens. More American evangelical Christians are interested in living there than most American Jews that I’ve seen, and the support for right of return for Palestinians is actually quite strong on the international stage, which is good news.


It is not a hidden secret or conspiracy theory that Dajjalistan (Khi1afat-e-Yehoodia) was established mainly by Ashkenazi (secular European) juice. This is generally well-known public knowledge. I believe that the founding father of that county, Dr Theodore Hertzl, PLAGIARIZED the idea of Khi1afa from Islam before or after he traveled to IC capital Istanbul to meet with Khaliefa Sultan Abdulhameed II, to design his own Yehoody version of Khi1afa which is what we see today. The 2i0nis7s are very careful today to avoid mentioning the words Khi1afa or ca1ipha7e to refer to their country, because if they do then they will start provoking the Muslims to think “Hey, if those juice can have their own country or Jevvish ca1ipha7e for their Yehoody umma then why can’t we Muslims have our country/ca1ipha7e for our own Umma? That’s so not fair!”

In the movie The Matrix, there is a famous scene you can see on a YouTube clip where the senior guide character called Morpheus tells the junior character Neo : “I’m trying to free your mind Neo. But I can only show you the door (which leads to the right path), but you’re the one who has to walk through it”. That statement is a perfect analogy or explanation for what soft sharia and “Non-Criminalized Discouraged Behaviors” (NCDB) is all about. The soft sharia government can only educate people to avoid many haram things and make it easier for them to do halal lifestyle, but it’s the responsibility of the individual people themselves by walking through the door (willingly avoiding haram). If some people fail to walk through that door then it’s not the fault of the guide who shows the door (the government educating the people to avoid haram) because it’s only those individual people’s fault. On the other hand, the hard sharia approach is about stabbing and beating people to try and force them to walk through the door, however that tactic is very controversial by itself because it could be argued that it is wrong to physically harm or torture those people to try and get them to go through the door which leads them to the path of salvation. What’s the difference between IEA and Majlis Ulama South Africa (MUSA)? MUSA don’t go around forcing their “everything is haram” views on others by harassing and beating up or killing people for not following their MUSA rules. That’s why I don’t mind people like MUSA and I even admire them despite them being more conservative/stricter than everyone else in the world, since they are living such a pious pure lifestyle with no haram, AND keep their views to themselves without forcing on others. I never said that hardline ultra-orthodox Muslims are extremist or khawarij, but rather I meant that they can become extremist or khawarij if they try to hijack and monopolize all political power in a caliphate for themselves and then try to violently brutally barbarically force their own lifestyle and moral ways on everyone else in the country and world against the will of local populations. That’s when they become extremist khawarij, not when they are peaceful and non-violent and out of power like MUSA.

Regarding women’s roles, I will explain simply the difference between modern western feminist civilization and Islamic civilization. In both civilizations, women are given the right to pursue either path (professional careers, or housewife and stay-at-home mother). However In the feminist civilization, they value women to do professional careers more than housewife/stay-at-home mom, so therefore the professional careerwomen are the MAJORITY of women and the norm or default setting for women, such as between 60% to 90% (varying by time and country), and the remaining 10 to 40% minority of women are tolerated to be the “exception to the norm” by following traditional gender roles. In Islamic civilization and in Islamistani soft sharia, because housewife and stay-at-home mother is valued more than professional careers, it’s totally the other way round, so the ratio of the two types of women are flipped to be the opposite of the feminist world. So in Islamistani soft sharia areas, the state supports the majority of women (such as 60 to 90%) to become housewife and stay-at-home mother (which is the norm or default setting for women), and simultaneously supports a minority of women (10 to 40%) to be the “exception to the norm” and pursue all kinds of careers and hobbies. And in Islamistan’s hard sharia or black Square areas, more or less all women follow traditional gender roles because they have no other choice. So because of these hard sharia areas’ women policy and our Islamistan soft sharia policy, Islamistan will inshallah always increase population and never suffer from the same demographic decline problem that all the other industrialized countries are suffering from, and at the same time Islamistani soft areas give enough fair chance opportunities for enough deserving women to fulfill their potential in careers in all fields without unfairly banning them from everything. So therefor IC offers the best of both worlds for women.

I accept that Muslim skeptic is conservative/orthodox/patriarchal but ONLY compared to the woke liberals, all NonМuslіms and most mainstream Muslim imams/speakers. But just put Muslim skeptic next to Majlisul Ulama and other similar ultra-hardliners with an “everything is haram” mindset (like many people in Pashtun tribal areas) and Mr Muslim Skeptic looks outright liberal and feminist in comparison to them. But still I think he is overall good person who is doing noble job of trying to save Muslims in the west from falling into the vortex of woke ultra-liberal ideology. However he is still too conservative for me and the majority of people in the Muslim world cities. I would never accept someone like him or with his views becoming the ruler of an Islamic country like Islamistan. Instead of supporting making expansionist Islamic empires like what he did in two of his videos to try conquer the whole world to force draconian hard sharia on everyone against their will, he should just stick to his lane of defending Islam and Muslims in the west from woke fascism.


Where do you get this idea that men and women must be beaten up or jailed just for not having beard or wearing burka or covering head? It does not say that anywhere in the Quran or hadeeth, and there is no unanimous scholarly consensus on such harsh cruel punishments for not wearing beard/burka. So therefore what you are saying has no basis in sharia, instead it is nothing more than the whims and desires of you and some Taliban/Daesh mullahs. Now just do a quick search of the photos and paintings of the Ottoman Sultans/khulafaa and queens. The fact is that many of them were clean-shaven or had only mustache, including even Abdul Hamid II when he first came to the throne. They used to practice the Sunnah of Concubinage or ما ملكت أيمانكم, and in this system the slave women generally do not cover the head. Many Islamic scholars throughout the ages have defined the minimum Aura of slave women to be less than free women, such as from t the shoulders to knees, and covering the head used to be considered as a symbol or identity marker of free women. So this means slave women are outside bare-headed in places like slave markets (after all potential buyers should be able to see what they look like), which means by definition the Ottomans (like the previous caliphates) tolerated the sight of uncovered women’s heads in public and did not consider it as nudity worthy of public censorship like genitalia. There is no ottoman law which says that “beat up or jail women for not wearing burka or covering their head!”. The Turkish serials also show how the ottoman people used to dress, and yes the majority of women used to cover their head, but not 100% of all of them. And you cannot deny the facts truth and reality that mustache with no beard was a very common, if not the most popular, facial hair style in ottoman empire for men. The Kemalists were wrong and mistaken in their policy of forcibly banning hijab and beard, because that makes them the “secular taliban” or “secular khawarij”.

Amr Madden

May Allah protect both the Ukrainian and Russian muslims And all the Muslims around the globe. About 10% of Russians are muslims so that is quite a significant demographic. Jazakallah Khayr

Last edited 10 months ago by Amr Madden

Although I suggest it is better to support Ukraine over Russіa in this particular standoff, as Muslims we should NEVER support the return of the currently Russian-ruled Crimea to Ukraine. This is because Crimea is the historical territory of the Muslim ummah, all thanks to the Sufi Ottoman Caliphate who were socially tolerant “moderate Muslims” that allowed non-vulgar decent music and tolerated clean-shaven men and bare-headed women and allowed Christian Zimmies building new churches and did not ban women going out without maherem or working outside home or having a public life (nothing like today’s hardline draconian “almost everything is haram and crime” Talibanists).

So if the Ummah makes a future caliphate or “United States of Islam” or “Islamian Union” or “Islamistan”, then this Islamistan may claim Crimea for itself as its historical territory. So therefore Crimea must either return to become Islamistani Caliphatean territory or (it not, then) carry on remaining Russian (to keep the status quo for pragmatic realpolitik purposes such as avoiding deadly wars which kill millions and devastate the land). It’s not right for us Muslims to support removing Crimea from Russian rule only for us to hand it over on a golden plate to a smaller Orthodox Christian nation who may join EU/NATO and then introduce gay weddings and pride parades there and intimidate the local Tatar Muslims to become raving feminazi Sodomists as well as hosting Yankee bases to drone the Middle East from.


Better yet, Turkey could just annex it since Crimean Tatar and Istanbul Turkish are mostly mutually intelligible. However, that will start WWIII as Russia will not give up that naval base in Crimea as it grants rapid deployment capabilities to the Black Sea to support his Middle Eastern allies. Yet, Russia and Turkey have become closer in ties, as every day goes by and Turkey becomes more and more of a “frenemy” to NATO.

Also, by the way, Shariah/Hudud is required in the establishment of a Khilafah, full stop. I’m not saying that a particular madhab or creed needs to be imposed on members of the Ummah, as disagreements and debates pertaining to interpretations and etiquette in worship are halal, so long as it does not give way to deviation from the Qur’an and Sunnah, and within those boundaries pertaining to new social trends and technologies, the council of ulema are supposed to issue fatwas regarding those. Even the Ottomans, who were moderate in comparison to your typical follower of Salafi aqeedah (or manhaj), imposed shariah and hudud within its borders because losing a hand for stealing would put the fear of God into any potential thieves, just as being stoned to death would dissuade adulterers from committing such sins. However, in Islamic prosecution, there also needs to be witnesses and the trial still needs to be fair for the accused, that’s something many people leave out when considering the topic of shariah and hudud. Proper Islamic education in the fundamentals of the religion is supposed to do 75%-90% of the job of societal law and order anyway, so if the individual Muslims are observant and well-educated in their deen, there wouldn’t be a need to be seeing trials and capital punishments every week. I do agree that a lot of what’s happening with the capital punishment in Afghanistan is often motivated by personal vengeance, and the proceedings aren’t exactly fair, but you have got to put things into perspective. The Taliban had just retaken the country and expelled foreign occupiers and are trying to establish ties with the neighboring countries. Given that they are not a professional military or what you would call a conventional government, the prosecution of offenders, especially of collaborators and traitors, isn’t exactly going to be based on a set standard, but more like a vengeful free for all. Allah SWT knows best and He is the best of planners, I make dua that Afghanistan can stabilize and that conditions can improve for both the government and the people.

Last edited 10 months ago by Mustafa

You talk about the current leadership of Turkey becoming “frenemies” with NATO. I don’t care who the leadership of Turkey are or what they do or think. The country that I’m talking about, “Islamistan Cаliphate”, is a completely brand new totally different country with totally different leadership, and I’m imagining this country as being established about 10 to 30 years from now, so that it becomes a major power of the mid-21st century. I strongly insist that Islamistan must be a “moderate caliphate run by moderate Muslims” (and the vast majority of urban Muslims will agree with me on this) rather than becoming Isis 2.0 or a bigger version of Taliban’s Afghanistan like what Muslim skeptic and his fans are fantasizing (oppressing and terrorising the moderate Muslim and nonMuslim urban population in the name of “nearly everything is haram and crime”). To make such a moderate caliphate we don’t need liberal secularism, but rather we can have a mild tolerant version of Islamic law that I call “soft sharia” where it is not so strict and harsh as the Taliban. In soft sharia, the hudood punishments directly mentioned in Quran and hadeeth are applied, and the government promotes and recommends a Conservative Islamic lifestyle but never enforces it on everyone, and the smaller haram things which have no punishments specified in Quran or hadeeth, and things which are conservative are discouraged but not criminalized (e.g. Dating, tattoos, women singing, women playing sports in the public park, and women not covering head in public). That means even those who live secular liberal lifestyles are not persecuted just for their lifestyle. In soft sharia, there is no general ban on music and movies (only regulation of it to censor vulgar or other bad content), and hijab is officially recommended by the state but never enforced, and bare-head women are accepted as equal citizens without any further discrimination or punishment. The discouragement of smaller haram things without criminalising it is similar to how governments officially discourage smoking with anti-smoking propaganda everywhere but they never jail or execute people who chose to ignore the advice and decide to smoke anyway. So because this soft sharia that I described is not so harsh or cruel or draconian, it is easily possible to win over the popular support of the urban majority population and majority of the Ummah who are “moderate” Muslims and nonMuslims, to support Islamistan as a moderate caliphate run by moderate Muslims under mostly soft sharia rule in the big cities. As for those ultra-conservative hardliners who want the Taliban-like harsh cruel draconian version of sharia (which I call “hard sharia”), I support Islamistan to appease them and prevent them from erupting in riots or violent rebellions, by granting them their own autonomous regions all over the country (similar to the Indian reservations in the USA, but less neglected by the government) where they are granted special autonomy to run those areas according to their own laws, including imposing harsh cruel draconian “everything is haram crime” hard sharia there, as long as they keep it confined to those areas and don’t try to invade the moderate-majority cities to try and forcibly impose hard sharia there against the will of the urban people who are at least 80-99% moderate Muslims, secular Muslims and nonMuslims. Then after this is done, we expect all the ultra-orthodox hardliners in the moderate-majority cities to relocate to those autonomous hard sharia regions to live under their own preferred law there instead of staying in the moderate Muslim cities to cause riots and other troubles there to disturb the moderate majority. This “multiple-sharia” and “Ideological socio-cultural Apartheid” system is the best and most effective way to keep Islamistan together in one piece as a stable United country without the two types of Muslims (moderates and hardliners) fighting each other in a bloody civil war. In this system everyone gets to live under their own preferred ruling system and surrounded by only like-minded people, which is the best way to satisfy the most number of people.


Typo-Correction: In Soft law, things which may be taboo in conservative Muslim culture but Quran+hadeeth don’t directly mention as haram and/or don’t specify punishment for it (e.g. Boyfriend-Girlfriend Dating, men and women handshaking, women playing sports or jogging in the park or singing non-vulgar song or doing non-sexualized folk dancing, and women not covering head) are Non-Criminalized Discouraged Behaviours (NCDB) very much like how smoking cigarettes is treated (with school education lessons and public adverts everywhere advising people to not do them). In soft areas there are many single-sex and gender segregated schools and colleges and workplace, but there is no general ban or elimination of all co-ed schools, colleges and workplaces. Instead, all people are just taught to avoid haram inappropriate interactions and expected to avoid it out of their own self-control and self-discipline. If some of them date anyway that’s not the state’s problem, because the state has already done its job which is only to educate people to not do such things, not to intrude in people’s personal private lives to control their private lives like cоmmies. Also another major Hard vs Soft difference is that in Soft shariiiea the state doesn’t forcibly prevent Zimmy nonMuslims living according to their own religion and established customs and culture, including being allowed to build their own temples and churches, and also including if they have unmarried domestic partner cohabiting couples living together with their illegitimate children (hudoud for zinna and alcohol only applied for Muslims). If there is not too much resistance in Soft areas, nonMuslim zimmies (we expect the majority of the urban ones to be secular liberals) may even be legally tolerated to keep their already existing haram venues such as pubs, bars, nightclubs and casinos (only for NonMuslims), as long as they strictly block Muslims entering those venues. This doesn’t mean that we Muslims endorse those haram venues or make them halal. But rather it’s just an extension of letting them to have their shirk temples/churches. If they are legally allowed to do the biggest sin (shirk) then why prevent them from doing smaller sins in their own closed-off areas where Muslims are banned from entering? Instead of forcibly preventing Liberal secular NonMuslim zimmies living according to their own culture/customs while they are still not Muslim, the Soft government only gives them Islamic dawah, and they will only be expected to give up their drinking, clubbing, gambling and attending haram venues, ONLY if they become Muslim, not when they are still nonMuslim.


This entire “socio-cultural Apartheid” and “multi-shariiea” system of having different law systems in different parts of the same country to appease different types of people is not new or unprecedented, because a lighter version of this has already been successfully implemented in at least one country so it has been tried and tested and proven to work. Look at Israaeel (the country which I call the “califate of the Yehoody umma”, because that’s exactly what it is); they have westernized secular-liberal Juice (whose lifestyle is full of drinking, partying and fornicating) and ultra-orthodox Haredi Juice whose culture and lifestyle is similar to Conservative Muslims. These two radically different types of Juice coexist peacefully without fighting violent civil wars against each other, because they have a system of voluntary social-cultural Apartheid where the secular-liberal Juice and Haredi ultra-orthodox Juice live separately from each other in their own different separate neighbourhoods and towns. The secular Juice Isr government tolerates the Haredi ultra-orthodox Juice (whom secular Juice nickname as the “Yehoody Tali-ban”) to enforce their own Yehoody laws in their own Haredi towns and regions, such as gender segregation, modest dress, banning photos of women in public, closing shops and banning driving on Sabbath, and so on. Those ultra-orthodox Yehoody laws are not enforced in the secular/liberal Juice areas, and vice versa. So in this way, these two types of Juice can each live under their own preferred ruling system and surrounded by only like-minded people, and they are not violently fighting each other over their radically different cultures and laws and lifestyles. That’s why they are able to materially succeed and thrive as a united stable nation. See that! If the Yehoody Umma can do that, then Мuslim should be able to do something similar but on a bigger scale, by having different versions of shariiea in different areas of the same country to comfortably accommodate different types of Muslims. And yes, soft sheriiea IS still Islamic sheriiea (with many differences compared to secular/liberal system), it’s just not as anywhere near as strict or harsh as hard sheriiea. Soft sheriiea is about persuasion and promoting Conservative Muslim lifestyle, not brutally forcing it on everyone with punishments like hard sheriiea. The juice are humiliating us by doing what we should have been doing since long ago! I’m not against the harsh draconian “everything is haram and crime” hard version of sheriea being enforced per se in Islamistan, as long as it is confined to a limited area of the country, only in those areas which have been specially designated and reserved for hardline ultra-conservative Muslims to live their dream lifestyle there happily ever after. Inside those Hardliner regions of Islamistan, the local authorities can be as harsh and strict as they like, including even if they want to go as far as Majlisul Ulama South Africa by haramizing and criminalizing 99% of everything in life including even all photos/videos, all sports, all vaccines, sitting on chair at table, eating with knife and fork, wearing suit and tie, girls schools and medresahs, and women driving or going to mosque or going out for anything other than emergency.

Wee Jim

“It is estimated that the Muslim population of Ukraine numbers around 500 000 to a million. That would amount to around just under 1% of Ukraine’s population of 44 million people.”

If it is estimated that the Muslim population of Ukraine numbers around 500 000 to a million. That would actually amount to just over 1% of Ukraine’s population of 44 million people to just over 2%. 
It’s revealing that in all the discussion no-one has noticed this basic arithmetical error up to now.