Politics

Can someone please educate me on mass protests in India? Are they just anti government protests?

It pains me to see our brothers and sisters like this. Since the CJP protests started trending, the fight against oppressors has divided our ummah more than it should have united. This is because major position holders among the protest participants were with the oppressors for a long time. The pattern of atrocities is recognizable; it is known. Many are aware of the repercussions, whether joining the protests or not. We are aware of what may come after, and the probability is high. So, should we join it or not? This question has brought some harsh takes, the reason being past events recurring like a turning wheel without brakes. So, should we stop or should we go on? Will it make a difference if many of us are not experts in politics? Will the consequences be different for those not so expert on the subject? What's the plan? Don't need vague answers, please. What do you think the Sahabas would have done? What does the Holy Qur'an say about it? I need some case studies. Wasn't Khalid Ibn al-Walid fighting against Islam before finally joining the side of Islam? Shed some light with respect. I am waiting for you all to give your insights, and please be respectful in the comments even if you disagree with each other. Don't get personal and don't attack each other.

As a follow-up to my previous post a few months ago about the Iran war (https://jamaa.com/social/post/pos_3BZ5hpC7ocTQNU5o1WdezY21izY/?utm_source=muzz_app&utm_medium=jamaa&utm_campaign=pos_3BZ5hpC7ocTQNU5o1WdezY21izY&referrer=srf_2hNx2h77Twht18atuf0HDamueM4&location=post) and its potential impact on America, there’s one major factor that I completely didn’t consider that’s a game changer to all of this: Nuclear weapons.

Just think about it. Iran has all the leverage right now in this war as it is. It controls the Strait of Hormuz and through its proxy Ansarullah controls the Bab al-Mandab Strait, putting a complete stranglehold on oil markets. Meanwhile, just as I predicted, the US and Gulf countries are increasingly depleting their resources of advanced munitions and missile and drone interceptors, and early warning radar installations have been systematically destroyed one by one in the various Iranian missile salvos. A ground war, even in the form of a limited incursion along the southern Iranian coast, would prove disastrous not just politically but also with innumerable casualties and a potential for a Ukraine style quagmire mixed with necessary counterinsurgency operations as well. The US is simply unprepared to pay the price of a long war of attrition that will suck up blood and treasure at an unsustainable rate, not to mention just the economic costs alone of the collapse of all oil reserves within the US. If the US maintains the status quo, then what I predicted will happen. The US will be seen as a defeated nation that can’t defend its allies, giving Russia and China the confidence to fully pounce on Ukraine and Taiwan and destroy American hegemony, while Iran with its newfound strength and leverage will pressure the Gulf nations to abandon the US, force them to withdraw, and end the petrodollar, which will spell the end of the American economy and republic as a whole.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu is in the political fight of his life with Knesset elections in late October. He forced America’s hand by striking Iran on Purim, giving this war a religiously symbolic significance, presumably hoping for a swift overthrow of the Ayatollah through the assassination strikes that started this war. He has long tied his hand with the religious fundamentalists throughout his political career, going back as far as the 1990s when Rabbi Mendel Schneerson called on him to do what was necessary to bring about the arrival of their moshiach, which is the masih ad-dajjal. He needs the religious fundamentalists to win, and they devoutly believe in establishing a greater Israel and demolishing Masjid al Aqsa to rebuild the temple.

When things were going really bad just prior to the MOU, Trump started publicly threatening to annihilate Iran’s entire civilization, and given that their air and missile campaign has successfully destroyed virtually all Iranian air defenses at least in the most populated cities in western Iran, the one leverage the US and Israel have on Iran, nuclear weapons, can easily be deployed en masse against Iranian cities. I fear that by October, unless a new ceasefire comes into effect, this is what will happen.

And the reality of the matter is that if it does happen, no nuclear or non-nuclear power will retaliate on behalf of Iran because no country wants to face nuclear annihilation in defense of Iran, so all the countries of the world will be able to do is cry feebly and enact sanctions and issue strongly worded condemnations.

When Netanyahu sees that no country will react to a nuclear attack on another nation, he’ll promptly threaten Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Turkiye, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait with nuclear annihilation if they don’t submit to his demands to give him, if not complete control, at least full economic control over all of the land of Greater Israel, from the Nile to the Euphrates. What greater election gambit could there be? Netanyahu would be seen as the greatest hero of all of Israel’s history if he did this and would win a lasting and decisive mandate, as well as fulfill the centuries long desire to establish a Greater Israel.

With full control over the Suez Canal, effective control over the Red Sea, and control of the Strait of Hormuz, Israel would now dominate global trade, and it would use its new power to stab America in the back by ending the petrodollar and supplanting it with the shekel as the predominant currency of the world. The US would collapse in much the same way as they would in the first scenario, and the collapse of the global economy that follows suit with it would hand over vast sums of wealth and power into the hands of Israel, and a New World Order with Israel running the world could come into being.

The fullest effects of fake accounts on dating sides and their victims

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/ce85y5lm7mzo

What's wrong with the Cockroach Janta Party Protest? The foundation on which it is destined to collapse.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Da_RJjLTfQ4/?igsh=ZDFnbHpwZjlqM2R3

30% of Africans in the TransAtlantic slavery to Americas were Muslims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPm6x5fklDQ

Gloating over Netanyahu and the occupying zionist regime, I say: congratulations to Spain! 🥳
Free Palestine 🇵🇸

https://www.facebook.com/share/1HKDhKw3m2/

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝'𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐊𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐖𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐖𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬.

One sentence appears so often in online debates that it has become a slogan:

"Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but almost every terrorist is Muslim."

The purpose of the statement is obvious. It invites the reader to conclude that terrorism is uniquely or overwhelmingly a Muslim phenomenon, and from there to associate two billion people with the crimes of a tiny minority.

The argument sounds persuasive because it is accompanied by a long list of attacks: 9/11, Paris, London, Madrid, Bali, Nice, Boston, Charlie Hebdo, the USS Cole, and dozens of others. Every attack listed was real. Every victim deserves remembrance. Every perpetrator deserves condemnation.

But there is something more important than the list itself.

It is what the list leaves out.

History can be manipulated without inventing a single fact. One simply selects one category of violence, ignores all the others, and presents the result as if it represents reality.

Suppose we applied exactly the same method elsewhere.

Instead of listing attacks by Muslim extremists, imagine listing only the largest acts of organized violence committed by states over the last two centuries.

The First World War.

The Second World War.

The Holocaust.

The atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo.

The Belgian atrocities in the Congo.

The genocide of Indigenous peoples throughout North America.

The destruction of Indigenous civilizations across South America.

The colonization of Australia and the near destruction of its Aboriginal peoples.

The Bengal Famine.

French repression in Algeria.

Italian campaigns in Libya and Ethiopia.

The Vietnam War.

Cambodia.

Laos.

Afghanistan.

Iraq.

Libya.

The countless coups, disappearances, torture centres, and death squads that scarred Latin America during the Cold War.

Apartheid South Africa.

The Atlantic slave trade.

European colonial expansion across Africa and Asia.

The list would continue for pages.

The death toll would not be measured in thousands.

It would be measured in hundreds of millions.

Would anyone then conclude that Christianity is inherently violent? Or that democracy is inherently genocidal? Or that Europeans are uniquely murderous?

Of course not.

Because we instinctively understand that civilizations cannot be judged solely by the crimes committed by some of their members.

Curiously, that principle disappears when the subject becomes Muslims.

The greatest killers in modern history have not been terrorist organizations.

They have been governments.

Governments possess armies.

Governments possess air forces.

Governments possess navies.

Governments possess intelligence agencies.

Governments possess nuclear weapons.

Governments can destroy entire cities in a single night.

The child killed by a missile is no less dead than the child killed by a suicide bomber.

The widow whose husband dies beneath an air strike does not mourn less because the pilot wore a uniform instead of carrying an explosive vest.

The moral difference between terrorism and unlawful state violence certainly exists in law.

The human consequence often does not.

None of this excuses terrorism committed by Muslims.

Every deliberate attack upon civilians is a crime regardless of who commits it.

The point is exactly the opposite.

If we genuinely oppose terrorism because innocent life is sacred, then that principle must remain sacred regardless of who kills the innocent.

A suicide bomb cannot become evil while a missile striking civilians becomes acceptable merely because one carries the flag of a recognized state.

Nor should the religion of a criminal become evidence against billions who share nothing with him except a label.

The selective use of violence has become one of the most effective propaganda tools of our age.

When violence is committed by Muslims, it becomes evidence about Islam.

When violence is committed by governments, it becomes geopolitics.

When violence is committed by allies, it becomes security.

When violence is committed by enemies, it becomes barbarism.

The standard changes.

The victims do not.

Justice cannot survive selective memory.

If we are going to count the victims of terrorism, we must also count the victims of invasion, occupation, colonialism, famine imposed by policy, strategic bombing, sanctions that devastate civilians, and every other form of organized violence.

Otherwise we are not defending truth.

We are defending a narrative.

History deserves better.

And so do its victims.

WhatsApp