The governments of the Muslim world never seriously acted to save the Palestinians

In 1948, they sent less troops than the Israeli Haganah (later "IDF") had to fight to liberate the Palestinians.

Jordan stopped at taking the West Bank, Egypt stopped short of Tel Aviv.

THREAD None of the Arab countries implemented mass mobilisation of their populations to supplement the number of the armies. Consequently, they only captured the West Bank and Gaza and Israel took the rest (including the areas designate by U.N for the Palestinian state).

Jihadis don't understand the difference between being able to fight pitched battles and guerrilla warfare. The Prophet's ﷺ army of Madinah, could fight much large forces because his army was able to fight pitched battles. A militia force that can't do that, isn't really an army.

https://twitter.com/yahya711_/status/1552958957790306304

Pitched battles are what armies are for, they mean you can 'stop' the enemy either from advancing or from conquering a fortified position. If you can't do that, you can't conquer them, and you can't stop them from going where they please - so no state can be formed by the Jihadis

Why the 'Jihadi' methodology for revival is a weak opinion [THREAD]

Jihadis are those who believe in armed uprising against the warlords of the firaq ("rulers" of the factions controlling Muslim land with UnIslamic law and force, not consent).

Here's why this is a weak opinion The reason Jihadis follow a weak opinion, and not a 'bida' method, is because they implement a hukm that comes from Islamic law to prevent Caliphs legislating not from the Book of Allah (SWT) - they just implement it in the wrong context (i.e. post-colonial Muslim world).

The deviation & 'bida' of Madkhalis (who demand we don't question the legitimacy of, or even publicly command the good and forbid evil to, secular regimes that legislate kufr laws over Allah's laws) is their treating of modern SECULAR rulers like a Caliphate w/ 100% Islamic laws And as a defence mechanism, they will call anyone who calls to the classical Islamic understanding as 'deviants' and 'khawarij', despite the fact that mainstream classical and modern (salafi) scholars hold these positions (which is mine too):

islamweb.net/en/fatwa/34854…

The Hijab IS NOT a 'religious symbol', it's just a covering that completes a dress covering the body (to the degree Islam mandates). The Hijab is no more religious than any other item of clothing eg blouse or (long) skirt

If Hijab is religious, then secular is full public nudity This is because *ALL clothing* worn by Muslims is done for the sake of Allah (SWT) according to His commands.

If you pick on the 'hijab' a Muslim wears, you might as well pick on all clothing, as they all do the same thing - cover parts of the body not to be exposed in public

The followers of Islam amongst the indigenous people of Al-Hind were rendered "foreign" by their exclusion from the British colonial categorisation "Hindu".

Before this, all people from the 'native' ethnicities of Al-Hind, were simply called Hindi (Arabic) or Hindu (Persian) It is a falsehood that there is something that can be called 'Hinduism' when in fact it encompasses multiple mutually contradicting beliefs, folk religions and philosophies. If 'Hinduism' simply refers to all the religions believed by the people of Hind, then why not Islam too?

We don't oppose the RSS/BJP just becos they're idolaters. They ultimately want to force Hind Muslims to convert or remove/kill them from Rep. of India. So our response to them is:

Why shud Muslims convert to Idolatry? Give us a rational argument we can't refute or leave us alone Just like the old Arabian idolaters, the BLP/RSS want to portray Muslims of Hind as "traitors to their ancestors".

Well guess what? Idolater ancestors are traitors to the One God, by making images and corrupting the original religion of mankind (monotheism).

So here's the deal

Secularism may (wrongly) stop ppl from opening up holy books to make laws from them, but what it can't stop, is fascists taking 'religion' in the secularised form of "national cultural/historic identity" and oppressing religious minorities as 'threats' to the 'national identity' This is what is happening in India with the hindutva fascist movement against Muslims and also in france and Austria too, and slowly throughout many places in Europe.

Since colonialism, the Muslim world has seen the erasure of widespread knowledge of fiqh of siyasa, hakimiyyah/sultaniyya (ie Islamic political philosophy). This ignorance allows ISIS to confuse ppl with its false claims and liberals/secular nationalists to avoid instant takfir Muslims argue and bicker over Muslim history and over current events, unable to react except with extreme uncritical support to secular dictators who make the slightest of Islamic seeming gestures, or extreme cynicism to Islamically inclined regimes who make the slightest mistake

If i could, I'd stop the speculative style & high frequency of pop lectures/videos on jinns, endtimes & dajjal (& freemason rubbish). It does not improve one bit Muslim life or action, but gives them excuses to be defeatist & fatalist -closing their minds with conspiracy theories And any Muslims who thinks that the world is controlled by a cabal & every event that happens is deliberate by their design, should fear Allah (SWT). They attribute to humans the powers that only Allah (SWT) has. This is shirk of gnostics (believing in an evil god of this world)

This morning a Feminist said "You don't know feminism, go study it".

Sure, I'll be happy to (re)read it, but first: which feminism is the true feminism you would like me to study?

Socialist/Marxist feminism (material or autonomist versions)?...

[THREAD] or anarcho-feminism, libertarian or liberal feminism? Which variety within the first, second, third or fourth wave? Radical feminism? The separatist feminism/political lesbianism or female supremacy feminism streams? (incl. trans-exclusionary feminism) or cultural feminism?..

Its amusing that those suffering from gender asabiyah/feminism have nothing better to reply to my JOKE *about feminism* (NOT abt our noble sisters who follow islam) except to claim i wrote a "scenario", or assuming things not mentioned (e.g. the woman's overworked with 8 kids..)

https://twitter.com/AbdullaAndalusi/status/1438847025458593792

The feminists also assumed I was arguing that the husband demanded coffee, or that the joke argued there's a specific obligation in islam to provide coffee (nope!). These interpretations of my joke reveals the mental lens & baggage feminism brings to the thinking of its believers

Liberal fallacy. Muslims obey a Caliph only while He remains in position, UNLESS he stops ruling by Islam. Tell me liberals, can anyone in the West rise up against their gov WHEN (at times) police beat them and confiscate their property? Do liberals justify rebellion then? No...

https://twitter.com/AkyolinEnglish/status/1345425486017658880

The condition of a valid ruler in Islam, is their ruling by Islamic law. If they commit bad actions (not bad laws), they should be taken to court, who may rule depose them. If this isn't possible and He remains, Muslims are commanded to obey whoever occupies the office of Caliph

I'm often amused at how Atheists + some Christians (despite their Bible!) think they've sufficiently criticised Islam by pointing to its laws on Irtidad (reneging of Islam), adultery & managing riqaab (servants) like they've proven some objective morality that clearly condemns it Just like I've refuted using only rationality, the Western conception of "Equality", Utilitarianism & "Natural Rights" theory and the (not truly implemented ideas of) absolute "Free" speech or Democracy- I can equally rationally deconstruct all such objections to Islamic laws too

"You want a Caliphate? [Most] Muslims can't even wake up for fajr!" is one of the most stupidest arguments I've heard. Ok, how can we organise Jumaah prayer anywhere if [most] Muslims can't do fajr? So there's no Govs in the Muslim (& non-Muslim!) world today because 'no fajr'? Some of the most efficient governments in the world, from Singapore (15-20% Muslim) to Finland, have populations where the majority of the population distinctly don't wake up for fajr - and yet, their governments 'miraculously' exist and function rather well.

Beware those Muslims calling to the firaq (factions)

The Prophet Muhammed ﷺ commanded Muslims to be united in one Jamaah under one leader (Caliph).

If this doesn't exist, we must REJECT *ALL* of the firaq (factions/regimes/gangs) that the Muslim world has become split into This doesn't mean we leave the lands, or become anarchists. It simply means, that until a Caliph can be re-appointed, and (all or a majority at least of) Muslims lands re-united back into a Jamaah (one group/state), we must recognise that no one has authority or our allegiance

[Thread] Unity, the sin of the Khawarij, and saving yourself from the brink of the fire (of hell)

It is said that the reason why Muslims don't follow the Quranic obligation to unite is a 'problem of Iman' (belief). This is true, but not in the way many Muslims believe it to be.. In this time of mental jahiliyah, the Muslim world has been overcome with a shallowness of thought. Therefore, many are unable to understand why they suffer the many ills that befall the Muslims. This is best explained with the concept of 'iman' and the obligation of unity.

600yrs ago, a Caliph of Islam legitimately took the Roman emperor's property, the ayasofya, and repurposed it as a masjid - like the Prophet Muhammed (ﷺ) did with the Kaabah

All that has happened, is Mustapha Kemal's secularist change into a museum 80yrs ago, has been revoked. The Ayasofya was the personal property of the emperor of Rome - not the orthodox Christian patriarchate or a waqf of the Christian people generally. According to Islamic fiqh, what was state property before, becomes Caliphate (state) property, managed by the Imam of the Muslims.