Tuesdays with Morrie,” as Mitch Albom himself stated, was never written to impress but to express—a heartfelt memoir of a teacher imparting his final lessons to a devoted student. In his last days, Morrie Schwartz unveils the wisdom of a life well-lived, answering the eternal questions that haunt every soul.

Through his words, he strips away the grand illusions of material success, reminding us that true value lies not in possessions but in human connections, in the fleeting yet profound moments shared with those we love. He urges us to see beyond the superficial, to recognize that life’s real treasures only reveal their weight when we stand at the edge of mortality.

And in his reflections, he offers a quiet yet powerful contemplation: “This is too harmonious, grand, and overwhelming a universe to believe that it’s all an accident.” Perhaps, in that realization, he nudges us toward the presence of something greater—a force beyond our comprehension, weaving meaning into our existence.

Yet, for all the mysteries of life, Morrie leaves us with one undeniable truth, a plea both urgent and eternal: “Love each other or perish.

Ever since I shifted my reading towards biographies of Muslim revolutionaries and memoirs of political prisoners and leaders, my reading pace has noticeably slowed. Completing a single book now takes an unprecedented amount of time, as each line carries an overwhelming influx of emotion, and every page demands time to absorb the reckoning thoughts it provokes.

When Only God Can See by Walaa Qusay and Asim Qureishi is one such book. It compiles the memoirs of Muslim political prisoners incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, Baghdad, and Afghanistan—often for no reason other than their religious identity, as a result of America’s infamous global War on Terror. The book recounts harrowing experiences of betrayal, humiliation, dehumanization, torture, and rape experienced by muslim political prisoners—making it both a narrative of horror and a testament to valour. The resilience of the Muslim prisoners is evident in their unyielding attempts to find meaning in their relationship with God and their determination to maintain ritual practice—even if that meant praying silently within their hearts, so their devotion could not be detected.

This book is not merely a collection of memoirs from victims of defunct practices—it sheds light on ongoing atrocities still taking place in the infamous prisons run by Western powers with demeaning impunity under the long-standing banner of the War on Terror….

People ran at the sound of bullets. They partook in the fray, not asking why or how. The countrymen against the French. All is clear and it takes place even if the dispute is over a triviality or if the fight is between drunkards. The French colonizer is then an enemy, and resisting the enemy is a duty. In those days, as I moved from one house to the next, I understood the meaning of Ibrahim Al-Shankal’s words about resistance against the colonizer, about national spirit, enthusiasm, initiative, solidarity, about hatred in the eyes, mouths, and hands, the hatred for everything that is French and anyone who cooperates with the French, be they landowners or Aghas, commoners or those who are weak in spirit and conscience. As for those who fought in battle and escaped arrest, they were honored by the city and I was among them. I, the one who had been in one world and suddenly found himself in another. I, the one who became a patriot without understanding the meaning of patriotism as the others whom God had blessed with consciousness and courage had understood it.

— The End of a Brave Man, Hanna Mina

In the literatures examining peoples’ revolutionary history, there recur some exceptional and divisive individuals who fuse revolution with heroism, crime and violations of law with tradition and custom. The accounts of their lives are often similar in terms of origin, circumstance, trajectory, and ending. Most crucially, they are similar in how they are received: in all of these cases, the public is divided over how to deal with these accounts. Some consider these individuals to be petty criminals and outlaws, while others see them as heroes.

The Arabs were familiar with this phenomenon since well before Islam, as it was represented by the groups of vagabonds known as Sa’alik, the most famous of whom was Urwa bin al-Ward, nicknamed Prince of the Sa’alik. These groups of men who broke with custom and tradition, confronting the economic, social, and political systems of their tribes, were either shunned by the tribe, or themselves fled the tribe. When hard times fell on the tribespeople, they would gather around the Sa’alik, who tended to their needs. When normality was restored, the tribespeople would again repudiate the Sa’alik and forsake them.

The similarity between the revolutionary and the outlaw consists in their decision to deviate from accepted “systems” and “laws.” The outlaw’s transition to national or political action—organized or spontaneous—is a smooth one. It is not marred by the same complexities of the transitions of members of the bourgeoisie, for example, which require a rejection of their social class and of the rituals, customs, and material comfort it provides. The outlaw, by way of his experience in the fields of theft and fraud, masters ways of operating outside of that law, acquires skills to deal with arrest and investigation, and carries out operations that require high degrees of prior planning. These experiences are similar in their practical logic to resistance action, even if the end goals differ.

Frantz Fanon was alert to this overlap and wrote the following about these outlaw figures in The Wretched of the Earth:

In the same way the people make use of certain episodes in the life of the community in order to hold themselves ready and to keep alive their revolutionary zeal. For example, the gangster who holds up the police set on to track him down for days on end, or who dies in single combat after having killed four or five policemen, or who commits suicide in order not to give away his accomplices—these types light the way for the people, form the blueprints for action and become heroes. Obviously, it’s a waste of breath to say that such-and-such a hero is a thief, a scoundrel, or a reprobate. If the act for which he is prosecuted by the colonial authorities is an act exclusively directed against a colonialist person or colonialist property, the demarcation line is definite and manifest.

As a crucial sign of his attachment and love for community, his sense of justice, and his acquisition of analytical tools which furnished him with a lucid and serious vision, the martyr Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam said of the outlaws: “Let them do their work because there is a manhood in that work which we will one day transform into holy struggle, and as long as the colonizer wants to kill our souls, these people are closer to God and to the love of holy struggle than are those who submit.”

The Marxist historian Eric J. Hobsbawm understood the significance of the outlaw or “social bandit,” whose particularities contradict the logic of law in modern liberal states, which is based primarily on the “social contract” and the “natural rights” of man to property, freedom, and life—as outlined by John Locke. According to this understanding, banditry is an assault on private property; it is a “criminal” act in the terminology of the state and the classes affected by said “criminal” act.

One of Hobsbawm’s books is based on a long and mythologized history of what he refers to as “social banditry,” traceable in the popular imagination of various societies, and centered around the heroics of thieves and bandits such as Robin Hood, Rob Roy MacGregor, and Jesse James. Hobsbawm addresses the phenomenon through its social context, wherein the outlaw or thief’s social role is one of revenge, especially if he defrauds or steals from a member of the dominant and tyrannical classes in society. Hobsbawm labels this thief the “noble robber.” In other cases, such as the Mafia in southern Italy, the outlaw provides an alternative to the dominant social order and relations imposed by the ruling class through the police and other forces of oppression and containment. Hobsbawm finds a similarity between social bandits and revolutionary heroes, such as Che Guevara, or Võ Nguyên Giáp and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, or in the Arab and Islamic context, those such as Abdul Karim al-Khattabi, Omar al-Mukhtar, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, Wadih Haddad, and others.

In many cases, the outlaws become figures of agitation in societies that persist in a state of submission, as they are the most capable of existing outside of the system that imposes humiliating conditions on the living. They also possess sufficient knowledge to live and sustain themselves outside of the dominion of unjust law. They set for themselves strict rules that organize their world with just traditions, granting the human being their dignity and the right to live a decent life in return for fulfilling one’s duties. For example, if one of the outlaws confesses to the authorities or informs on one of his companions, this is sufficient to end his trajectory with the group.

Because outlaws are at the bottom of the social pyramid, their world is explicit. They are not fooled by authority’s tricks and lies, nor are they subject to its discourses, tools of mediation, and manufacturing of public opinion. The world in which they find themselves is one that is pristine in its reality, with all its hardships, miseries, poverty, and injustice. One thus finds that they hold justice in the highest regard and that they are the most contemptuous of its absence.

It is important here to mention the enormous connection between any covert movement or revolution and the underground world which exists outside of the law. The law is a tool for normalization and hegemony at the hands of power, which reserves the right to interpret or revise said law. Therefore, revolutionary, covert movements exist on par with the outlaw “underworld.” Revolutionary movements have always relied on this underworld to acquire know-how, logistics, and arms, as well as tactics of maneuvering and methods of obtaining financing, in order to confront the enemy.

Arab, Palestinian, and International Figures

The figures that we will discuss all hail from the poorest and most oppressed classes in society, which are subjected to the greatest degree of persecution. Most of their stories also share similar sets of circumstances that lead to the creation of a new humanity and to moments of birth and transformation.

We are talking about individuals whose consciousness is formed by material experience and whose life begins with rejection by society. Yet they come to be heroes: women sing of them at weddings and men hail their names and virtues, as they become models of heroism and rebellion. We are speaking here of individuals who are nothing but revolutionaries from the first moment. In their qualities, virtues, and psychological composition, they are marked by courage, rebellion, boldness, and intelligence. They are not deceived by embellishments nor are they ever domesticated.

Have you heard of Ibrahim, the boy who was killed in 1913, the one who loved Fatima, daughter of the feudal lord, and who was chased and persecuted as a result? He realized the extent of the injustice and oppression imposed by the state and feudal lords on the peasants and the poor, so he formed a gang that robbed the rich and gave the poor their rights. That boy was Hekimoğlu Ibrahim, one of the most famous dissenters in the Ottoman Empire, who became one of the most renowned icons of popular epics, whom people sing of and whose story grandmothers retell to children in order to instill in them the highest values—deepening their concepts of struggle, freedom, justice, equality, and love.

Hekimoğlu bears some resemblance to the English folk hero Robin Hood or to the Prince of the Sa’alik, Urwa ibn al-Ward, but he most closely resembles the Scottish revolutionary William Wallace, depicted in the movie Braveheart, in whose case love was also the engine of revolution. And just as Hekimoğlu’s life inspired people, so did his death. The picture of him as a dead man cradling his Martini–Henry rifle made all the youths in the Ottoman Empire covet that same rifle. To this day, our popular songs and chants in Palestine recall Hekimoğlu through that Martini rifle.

These outlaw figures are distinguished from revolutionaries only by consciousness and political mission. The latter, whose social base and political projects are created by material conditions, become a nation’s hope and model. In his book Guerrilla Warfare, Guevara noted this great similarity when he said:

The guerrilla fighter counts on the full support of the local people. This is an indispensable condition. And this is clearly seen by considering the case of bandit gangs that operate in a region; they have many characteristics of a guerrilla army, homogeneity, respect for the leader, bravery, knowledge of the terrain …

According to Guevara, if the people rally around these gangs, they will be transformed into revolutionaries.

This can be demonstrated by the story of the martyred Iraqi militant Suwaiheb, the peasant who was killed by gangs hired by feudal lords in al-Ahwar, near the al-Kahla River, in Iraq in 1959. He was the first martyr after the revolution of July 14, 1958, commemorated by Muthaffar al-Nawab, in the poem Suwaiheb, sung by Sami Kamal.

Although the people embraced these individuals as icons and heroes illuminating the way, the state and its law were unable to account for the logic at work. Even when the authorities used these icons as myths in their own state projects, they continued to consider them outlaws. Here we may refer to the popular epic of the Egyptian folk hero, the martyr Adham al-Sharqawi, whose memory the Egyptians still commemorate in their popular songs to this day, about whose life two TV series were made. His story was deployed during the Nasser era, as the tide of socialist pan-Arabism swept over, and a film about his life was made, starring Abdullah Ghaith and directed by Hossam El Din Mustafa, with Abdel Halim Hafez singing the film’s mawil and folk songs. And yet, the clothes of Adham al-Sharqawi, who was killed in 1921 at 23, are still displayed in the “Notable Criminals” section at the National Police Museum.

The revolutionary martyr and theorist Malcolm X is one of the most famous examples of the revolutionary outlaw. He was born to a small and impoverished Black family, growing up under a racist system that no sound person could accept. In 1931, when he was six years old, his father was killed by a white supremacist group. Four of his uncles were then also killed at the hands of whites, without trial. His mother was placed in a psychiatric hospital.

Malcolm’s presence at a school for whites was sufficient to compel him to comprehend the extent of injustice experienced by Black people, even at the tender age of six. The seeds of rebellion and revolution were planted in him at a young age. He learned to shout in anger, as did the character of Mufid al-Wahsh in Hanna Mina’s novel The End of a Brave Man. Malcolm X has said of this phase of his life: “So early in my life, I had learned that if you want something, you had better make some noise.”

As he reached puberty, these protestations took on a more violent and rebellious form. He undertook burglary and theft, and was imprisoned for it, continuing his high school studies in prison. Afterwards, he left prison for Boston and New York, where he dove into a world of violence, crime, and drugs, before returning to prison.

His moment of rebirth took place in prison and he emerged a new human. His consciousness about the injustice which Black people are subjected to across the United States had expanded. The cruelty of life in prison gave him the knowledge and art of interpreting society’s deviant behaviors as Fanon and Ali Shariati did, and not as the half-educated people who considered them pathologies or genetic mutations do.

Malcolm X forged his path towards becoming one of the most influential Black leaders, partaking as well in the struggles of other nations, such as the Algerian Revolution. His was a critical mind that could not accept lies, deception, and quackery. He maintained that thought and theory must be subjected to social conditions. Then, the hunt for his life began, and multiple assassination attempts were made on him until one was successful on February 21, 1965.

As for the Algerian martyr Ali La Pointe: born in 1930, he knew injustice, poverty, and exploitation on the colonial farms in his town of Miliana in Algeria. Then he moved to Algiers, the capital, to practice boxing, soon stepping outside of the colonial law and being thrown in prison. There, he was reborn. How many national heroes were born in prison? Abu Jilda, Al-Armit, Farid Al-’As’as, and Abu Kabari were also prison births, later becoming national symbols.

La Pointe: that name which attached itself to our hero, the hero of the Battle of the Casbah, the arena over which he, Ali La Pointe, exerted his control before his rebirth, he who led several operations against the French occupation in Algiers, aiding the revolution in its move from the mountains to the cities. On October 9, 1957, the French blew up his hideout. He was martyred along with three other heroes: the young woman Hassiba Ben Bouali, Talib Abdel Rahman, and the child Omar, who also became one of the many symbols of the revolution.

And here we mention the martyr hero Hussein Al-Ali, from the Arab Saqrs of the Beisan valley. He is one of the most important Palestinian examples. Al-Ali killed a cousin who had done him an injustice. (Most of the Palestinian examples similar to Hussein Al-Ali begin their stories in a clash with authority starting from the bottom of the pyramid, such as the mukhtar, then the feudal lord, and then the bourgeoisie which takes on the face of the colonizer and its comprador.) He was chased after by the British authorities and went underground until the Great Revolt of 1936, then becoming one of its leaders and most important symbols. Hussein was later martyred in a crushing battle with the forces of the British enemy. He was immortalized by the poet Tawfiq Ziyad in his epic Sarhan and the Pipeline, sung by the ‘Ashiqin band.

The beginning of every revolution is an exit, an exit from the social order that power has enshrined in the name of law, stability, public interest, and the greater good. Every social and economic authority necessarily intersects with and is an extension of political authority. This is how these heroic figures can be understood and appreciated by the general public, who are overpowered, as though by instinct. From there, we understand the hostility of social, economic, and political authority towards these figures, and its use of the law as a tool to tarnish their image and criminalise them. We therefore also understand the smooth transition from the outlaw into the revolutionary—the one who resists.

 Full Essay with Forwards: The Anarchist Library

The whole family line of those who follow these empty ideologies is going to be wiped off the face of the earth when they die. Mission accomplished. On the other hand, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. So Shaytan is actually just depleting the pool of future Muslims by ending the non-Muslim's bloodline. Because someone from their progeny was going to become a Muslim. It’s a serious mistake to ever entertain any ideas or any theories coming out of the west and the only reason that they would entertain any of their ideas or any of their theories is if they do not understand the nature of the character who is preaching. If they understand the character and understand the role in the story then you will immediately understand the point of their dialogue and what our antagonist is trying to accomplish by having them speak.

These hostages of Shaytan only talk to each other to reinforce their own captivity, their intellectual moral spiritual and psychological captivity. Muslims need to start protecting their brains the same way that we are commanded to protect our private parts. If we are intellectually promiscuous in the discourse that we expose ourselves to, we’re going to get a rhetorically transmitted disease.

When these people talk to each other there is literally nothing to learn from them, rather learn something about them and diagnose what’s wrong with them and what’s been done to them that made them like this. We respect them as human beings but we don’t have to respect a word that comes out of their mouth or respect their mind and thoughts. We have good manners with them but no respect for their ideas and opinions because they don’t either. How are we supposed to respect them when they don’t respect themselves?.

The Essence of West

It has become a normal to run over to the west and non-muslim’’ for information for validation for confirmation for verification and for approval meanwhile they are pathological psychopathic liars literally wandering around drunk in the dark they’re zombies who have been subsisting on the flesh of the global south, we are literally going to them as a reference as the arbiters of what’s accurate and correct.

Meanwhile these are the same people who swore up and down that Saddam Hussein had unholy apocalypse all stockpiled in Iraq and he was about to unleash it on the world just because they wanted to demolish his country, these are the same people who watched 600 Afro-American men rot for four decades in Tuskegee and Alabama without penicillin these are the same people who laced their own citizens with LSD under MK Ultra who smeared who sabotaged the civil rights movement under COINTELPRO and they called it national security literally they went to war against their own citizens covert war CIA style war against their own citizens just for wanting their own civil rights. The same people are starving Gaza after completely demolishing it they’re starving them the entire Gaza Strip is in a state of catastrophic hunger million people on the edge of starvation

These are the same people who handed out the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama when his drums were vaporizing whole villages

Muslims are the protagonists of this story but we’ve been acting like side characters in the story of humanity, who are desperate to become the west’s sidekick and they only ever treat us like a villain because the wrong character in this story has got the main character syndrome, the west has got main character syndrome like we can’t believe and they believed it so much that they actually got us convinced they are the protagonist of this story. We need to stop centering ourselves around them and stop looking at everything through the west’s eyes. We look at ourselves through their eyes, we even look at our own people through their eyes and even some of us look at islam itself through their eyes and that ends up being the same thing as being blind.

Marriages In Islam

The relationships in Islam right in the Muslim world we have arranged marriages or anyway we have marriages without dating we have marriages with family oversight and so on we have varying degrees of gender separation across the Muslim world. The west has dating, cohabitation, common law marriages, short-term dating, long-term dating, one-night stands, no gender separation, free mixing, boyfriends girlfriends, friends with benefits and women have male friends, men have female friends all of that they go through long periods of getting to know each other before they marry etc.

Still why is the west the epicenter of relationship confusion, feminism, red pill, black pill, relationship coaches, dating advice, self-help books, relationship gurus, marriage counselling, relationship counselling. Theoretically the west should actually know much more about each other than anyone but still they have women seeking out relationship guidance from tiktok and they have men on the so called manosphere trying to understand women, well they are all right up next to each other 24×7 in their societies. They live with their partners for years before marriage and still marriages fail with highest divorce rates on record, loneliness, epidemic etc west is a complete catastrophic failure in the area of relationships families.

The West teaches how to get rich by renting a Lamborghini and making videos about how to get rich, how to protect human rights with mass shootings over a thousand people murdered every year by the police, human rights with indefinite detentions. How will they have a democracy, when all of the power in your country is in the hands of the unelected private sector. How to have free speech when every venue of speech is controlled by tech companies that have full censorship authority and can get kicked out of university or fined or jailed or deported for saying free Palestine.

By looking through the blind eyes of the west or listening with the deaf ears of the west, now the only thing that we’ve ever gotten from the west are bad habits and we need to break them by emphasizing that we are the protagonist of this story. The Muslims need to act like it.

Our frame isn’t to protect Muslims from hate but our frame is to protect humanity from Shaytan, that’s the protagonist’s posture.

Conclusion

We are not begging for a safe corner where they won’t beat us and every injustice that they commit is our business whether it’s in Afghanistan or in Argentina if it’s Egypt or South Africa. Whether they are oppressing people physically or oppressing them mentally psychologically, spiritually or economically, it’s our business.

Here, I’m not bragging about Islam and try to convert people but from confusion to clarity whether they come to Islam or not is a matter of their own intelligence and whether or not Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala sees enough good inside their heart to bless with guidance but I’m not about to pretend for their sake that confusion and clarity are the same or that misguidance and guidance are the same or that being a hostage of Shaytan is the same as the people who are actively fighting against Shaytan.

It is not to make them feel better that immorality and morality are the same or the degradation is the same as dignity because that’s the difference between us and you.

Still the Muslims are labeled ad terrorists and so on when we both know perfectly well who is the one who told them that is the same one that’s making their life miserable and who’s gaslighting them about it.

We have reached a time when the western system has collapsed the western narrative has collapsed the western framework has collapsed western legitimacy has collapsed western credibility has collapsed and if the Ahlul Kitab and the Mushrikeen want to keep falling down that sinkhole with the west telling themselves that they are on a mountaintop while they are in a sinkhole that’s up to them but we The Muslims are not going to play along with that anymore we’re not going to play along with that delusion anymore and we’re sure not going to go down with them.

Shahid King Bolson began his talk in one of his lectures called “Protagonist of Humanity” posted in The Middle Nation YouTube channel by saying that

“You’re always the target in the story of humanity”, and he explained.

When people talk about so-called Islamophobia as a defense against the imperial oppression and witch hunt of Muslims, it is getting far too reductive that it’s very misleading. Because Muslims aren’t just one of those marginalized identity groups in the West or anywhere in the world. We are not looking for a safe space inside that torture chamber that they call a civilized society. Moreover, Islam and Muslims are not attacked when they overtly do so, like when they explicitly target Islam and target Muslims like for sisters wearing hijab in public places and schools or for someone praying in public, or when a masjid is vandalized. No, they attack Islam and Muslims whenever they degrade and defile humanity when animalistic behaviors are normalized, when people are addicted to drugs and alcohol, when women are being hyper-sexualised, when pornography industry is being flourished, when people are indoctrinated into abnormal and unhealthy lifestyles, when poor and the weak are mercilessly preyed upon, when corporates control nation, this is all anti-Islamic behaviors.

It doesn’t change position even if the victims are non-Muslims or if it is happening in a non-Islamic country because humanity is being attacked and the perpetrators are enjoining evil and forbidding good, and that ultimately means that they waged a war against Islam and Muslims. And we Muslims know that ultimately corrupting us is the ultimate objective.

They are shooting bullets of corruption through their own people, hoping that those bullets will eventually hit us.

The Only Real Conflict

There’s ultimately only one conflict, the conflict between Shaytan and Bani Adam (humanity).

That’s the only real conflict. And the people who are standing up for Bani Adam, for humanity, that’s the Muslims. We stand up for the nobility, virtue, honor, dignity of the children of Adam, the human race. Therefore, anything that degrades humanity, that dishonors and corrupts humanity is always an attack on Islam and Muslims.

We’re the ultimate target of that, even if it’s not explicitly called Islamophobic, because we’re here to uplift and to dignify and to sanctify human beings. We are here to prove our worthiness, but Shaytan is here to prove our unworthiness.

So everything that gets promoted, that degrades people, is anti-Islamic.

Essentially being so-called Islamophobic means being against morality, piety, virtue, uprightness and honesty and chaste and decent, because that’s what Islam stands for.

Story of humanity

Now, it has been very reductive in what we consider anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic. To be able to understand this we need to know the whole picture. There are basically sort of four collective characters in the story of humanity

The characters:

1. The Ahlul Kitab : the Jews and the Christians.

2. The Shaytan : Iblis, Devil, Satan

3. Mushrikeen : Atheists, Agnostics, Polytheists and so on.

4. The Muslim

These are the characters in this story, the lead antagonist is Shaytan, and the protagonist is the Muslims. We are the collective protagonist of the story of humanity and all the other characters in the story become instruments of Shaytan in the struggle and the tension and the conflict between Shaytan and us. This gives us a simple framework for interpreting our life in this world that we can anchor ourselves in. When we know those characters and understand their actions, they rarely ever act out of character. This is what I’ve meant when I talk about knowing what team you’re on. Which collective character are you a part of ? Because you’re either part of the protagonist or you’re part of the antagonist or you’re just an extra that will just end up being a pawn in the story. Just an instrument that will be used by the antagonist against the protagonist.

Subscribe now

Shaytan Vs Muslims

A lot of people think that the battle between good and evil is between God and the devil. But you make the devil way bigger than he is when you think like that. No one has the power to do battle with Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala because he is the creator of everything. To do battle with God. The counterweight of the devil isn’t Allah. It’s we, It is the Muslims. We are the counterweight against Shaytan and his battle is against us.

It’s against us because we stand up for Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala. Because we worship and obey Allah. Because we do the Sujood (Submission) that the devil refused to do and in doing so, we stand up for all of mankind. We’re the advocates for humanity, human goodness, nobility of our species. And we’re the ones that Shaytan is trying to defeat. Shaytan is the enemy of all three characters, but he’s not fighting everyone. He’s fighting Muslims because we’re fighting him. He’s not fighting others because others are not fighting him and they are already under his control.

So he is their enemy but he’s not fighting them. He took them hostage and is controlling them, that’s why they are fighting us because we are fighting to get you out of his clutches. Let me explain about how Shaytan got them hostage. The west have all these different iterations of movements whose real sole objective is to ultimately alienate men and women from each other.

Well Muslims are the ultimate target of these filthy plots on relationships. Because demographics and birth rate is the fundamental component for a society to even perpetuate itself. It is masqueraded in different ideologies, like feminism or red pill or black pill or incel or MGTOW & WGTOW( Men and Women Going Their Own Way), LGBTQ, beauty standards, sex positivity, body positivity, pornography, All this nonsense. This is all Satanic strategies just to try to estrange men and women from each other. And estrange them from their natural innate fitra when it comes to each other. So that it might eventually infect the Muslims and destroy our families and end our bloodlines.

The Infectant West

Shaytan is using the west like a biological weapon. He infects them with corruption and with confusion and then he sends them out to go contaminate others. If they ever get into any of these weird theories from the west about relationships, whether it’s modern feminism or red pill, you are already on the absolute outer fringes of heterosexuality.

The whole beauty standards dialogue like men are only attracted to a certain ideal type of woman — maybe slim, curvy, fair, tall. Who looks this way or that way. Because, any man that this applies to, if it applies to anyone in the real world, not just on the internet, any man who’s like that, he’s barely heterosexual in the first place. Men are attracted to women full stop. Women are attracted to men full stop. Doesn’t matter. That’s the only thing that’s true as a generality. Everything else is individualized. Literally everything else beyond these natural facts comes down to the unique qualities of individuals.

So if you’re trying to complicate and interfere with or confuse people about this, well you’re an unnatural person. You want men and women to be adversaries. You want them to approach relationships like rivalries. And the people who get captured by these weird ideologies, they’re hostages. These are the people from among the Mushrikeen who are transformed into zombies by Shaytan. These are just unthinking puppets being operated by whatever ideological strings that get hooked into their emotions and into their nafs by Shaytan to advance this broader strategy against humanity and against the Muslims with these empty ideologies. These are fronts for a hostile campaign against human love, dignity, decency, and the fitrah. Same as literally anything else that ever comes out of the mouth of an atheist. Well there is no one who brag about their own insignificance — who somehow think that not mattering makes them special like the atheists do.

What’s the common denominator among all of these types of people who follow all of these weird ideas? They don’t have children. These ideologies serve a common end result that they are the last generation of their lineage on this planet.

Part- 2 : Human Pool Depletion

The Prophet ﷺ said:

"The people will soon summon one another to attack you just as people invite others to share their dish."

Someone asked: "Will that be because we will be few in number at that time?"

He ﷺ replied: "No, you will be numerous at that time, but you will be like the foam (scum) of the sea. Allah will remove fear of you from the hearts of your enemies and will throw Al-Wahn into your hearts."

Someone asked: "O Messenger of Allah, what is Al-Wahn?"

He ﷺ replied: "Love of the world and dislike of death."

Mental Colonization

The call for the decolonization of Gaza has become a performative protest within the Ummah—a strong expression of helplessness and resentment, now reduced to mere social media gestures. These calls are repeated daily, often without truly feeling the pain of those enduring the suffering. It has become a story of habit: like those who live by the sea and no longer hear the crashing of waves, we too have grown numb.

This parable mirrors the state of our distant and fading resistance. The weakness can be diagnosed from head to toe within our Ummah—from Muslim nations and their rulers, to Islamic scholars, and even the general body of Muslims (the Muslimeen), who remain vigilant about the plight of Gaza only until that concern begins to disturb the comfort and stability of their own lives.

The Hole of Heart

Metaphorically speaking, every human being carries a void within the heart — not a physical emptiness, but a spiritual one. This void longs to be filled with submission to Allah in order to attain true inner peace and dignity in this world. Yet, we often attempt to fill it with fleeting pursuits: a new job, a vacation, a house, a car, or even family and travel. Forgetting the reminders of Holy Qur'an:

المال والبنون زينة الحياة الدنيا ۖ والباقيات الصالحات خير عند ربك ثوابا وخير أملا
"Wealth and children are [but] adornment of the worldly life. But the enduring good deeds are better to your Lord for reward and better for [one’s] hope."
(Surah Al-Kahf, 18:46)

These worldly distractions have rendered the Ummah increasingly deluded and vulnerable to the temptations of materialism, slowly leading us away from our true purpose. In doing so, we become heedless of the divine mission bestowed upon us, as clearly stated in the Holy Qur'an:

"And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me." (Adh-Dhariyat, 51:56)

By neglecting the commandments of Allah (ʿazza wa jalla), the Ummah begins to pursue purposes crafted by the one who was himself led astray — Shayṭān. In this state of heedlessness, we not only risk losing sight of our ultimate purpose — to worship Allah with sincerity and devotion — but also forfeit the honor of living a dignified life in this world as the bearers of divine light and truth.

Just as we have been commanded to enjoin good and stand firm for truth and justice, the Ummah has collectively been entrusted with a noble mission: to liberate the servants of Allah from the bondage of servitude to other slaves, and instead lead them to a life aligned with the commandments of their Creator.

In essence, Allah reminds us that if we do not worship Him, we will inevitably end up worshipping something else. The very prostration we often consider too burdensome is the one that frees us from a thousands of other prostrations — whether to wealth, status, desires, or false ideologies. True freedom is found only in servitude to Allah alone.

Al-Wahn of The Ummah

The longing void within the human heart is often already filled — not with truth, but with an attachment to worldly life and a deep fear of losing it through death. This misplaced love weakens the soul and renders the body that carries it self-centered and fragile. We call this condition Al-Wahn, even though the Ummah was warned centuries ago by the noble Prophet ﷺ about a time when it would be vigorously attacked by its enemies, much like people hastily rushing to share a dish. Despite existing as powerful nations and numerous people, the Ummah has been weakened from within, allowing oppressors to prevail.

The disease of al-Wahn — love of the world and hatred of death — has crept into the hearts of Muslim rulers, nations, scholars, and the general body of believers. It has rendered the Ummah silent, passive, and detached, turning us into mere spectators as parts of our own body are burned and destroyed by oppressors — as we witness in Palestine, Sudan, China, and elsewhere. This stands in stark contrast to the parable given by the Prophet ﷺ, who likened the Ummah to a single body: when any part of it suffers, the whole body feels the pain.

The Irony of Colonization

The continuous calls for the liberation of Gaza often reflect the sense that it represents one of the last Muslim lands still struggling to gain sovereignty from a long-standing occupying force. Unlike many other colonized Muslim regions that have moved on or adopted different paths, Gaza remains one of the few that has chosen the route of collective armed resistance—enduring relentless loss of life and peace despite getting offered many options through compromising the principles of the Deen of Allah. In doing so, it stands firm in a stance that many see as remaining true to the prophetic teachings on defending one’s land, faith, and dignity.

A (Sahih Muslim - Hadith 141)

عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ:

"مَنْ قُتِلَ دُونَ مَالِهِ فَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ، وَمَنْ قُتِلَ دُونَ دِينِهِ فَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ، وَمَنْ قُتِلَ دُونَ دَمِهِ فَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ، وَمَنْ قُتِلَ دُونَ أَهْلِهِ فَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ."

“I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say:

Whoever is killed defending his wealth is a martyr,
whoever is killed defending his religion is a martyr,
whoever is killed defending his life is a martyr,
and whoever is killed defending his family is a martyr.”

There is a deep irony in calling for the territorial decolonization of Palestine while many of those making the call remain themselves mentally colonized—conditioned by fear, attachment to comfort, and a desperate clinging to life. Gaza, in its steadfast resistance, not only demands liberation for its land but also calls us to liberate ourselves from the mental chains of modern nation-states—structures that often survive under the shadow and patronage of the very colonizers we oppose. The uncomfortable truth is that Gaza has long been engaged in its struggle, while we have yet to begin ours.

Quran calls out:

The Women (4:75)

وَمَا لَكُمْ لَا تُقَـٰتِلُونَ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَٱلْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ ٱلرِّجَالِ وَٱلنِّسَآءِ وَٱلْوِلْدَٰنِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَآ أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْ هَـٰذِهِ ٱلْقَرْيَةِ ٱلظَّالِمِ أَهْلُهَا وَٱجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ وَلِيًّۭا وَٱجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ نَصِيرًا ٧٥

And what is it with you? You do not fight in the cause of Allah and for oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, “Our Lord! Deliver us from this land of oppressors! Appoint for us a savior; appoint for us a helper—all by Your grace.”

Religions and Resistance

Malcolm X’s transformation and life trajectory underscore the indispensable role of religion in shaping his radical thought and political consciousness. For him, religious ideology and its praxis were not separate from the struggle—they were central to it. He viewed faith as both the foundation and fuel of revolutionary action, especially in confronting a system built on racial antagonism and oppression in American society. Religion was not merely a personal belief, but a weapon of revolution—and Malcolm was the revolutionary who wielded it with conviction.

According to Malcolm X, throughout history, religions have either stood in resistance to worldly corruption or compromised with it. The Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—began with founders who fiercely opposed the evils of their time and opposed its perpetrators. Moses confronted the tyranny of Egyptian slavery, Jesus denounced the atrocities of the Roman Empire, and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) challenged the brutality and moral decay of Arabian Jahiliyya (the Age of Ignorance).

Each of these prophetic figures embodied an uncompromising voice against unjust power, oppressive governments, exploitative ruling classes and the dominant 1% in the society. They stood for the oppressed and envisioned a society rooted in justice, compassion, divine accountability and brotherhood.

However, history has repeatedly shown that these religions, despite their radical origins and non-conforming prophetic praxis can be co-opted by worldly powers. Over time, they are often absorbed into systems of power, aligned with wealth, status, and the dominant elite. When this happens, the radical and liberating core of these faiths which made them attractive in the struggle against oppression is diluted or lost. These co-opted forms may appear holy and pure on the outside but are hollow and spiritually lifeless within.

Too often, such religions are embraced by the victors of history—feudal lords, aristocrats, colonial rulers, and today’s corporate elite and the wealthiest 1%. Once instruments of liberation, these faiths can become tools of pacification and control.

Novocain

Passive, co-opted religions tend to serve two primary functions. First, they pose no threat to the ruling class; they are politically harmless and spiritually anesthetizing. Second, they offer a psychological release for the guilty conscience of the privileged while pacifying the oppressed.

Malcolm X famously described these as “Novocain religions”—spiritual opiates that numb the pain of suffering without challenging its source. With such a religion, the oppressed are encouraged to "suffer well"—to endure injustice quietly, peacefully, and without resistance they will be paralyzed from engaging in their own struggle for liberation. Those religion and its proponents can be seen undergone an ethical deformity in which exchanging the prophetic courage for elite proximity, prophetic clarity for institutional comfort and prophetic suffering for sanitized sainthood are justified as the need of world and the natural progression of an ideology. This preserves the status quo, leaving it unchallenged and well-maintained by the very victims it exploits.

Abandoned Potentials

Despite Malcolm X’s Christian upbringing, he struggled to find within Christianity the transformative power necessary to confront systemic injustice in America. He saw that Christianity, particularly as practiced in the U.S., had often traded its prophetic mission for comfort, stability, and alignment with state power.

The religion that once stood with the poor and against the empire had, in many cases, deflated its oppositional nature and settled for being the spiritual wing of the status quo. It no longer challenged social idolatry or state-sponsored violence but instead sanctified it. As Malcolm observed, Christianity in America had often abandoned its revolutionary calling.

Even after breaking ties with the Nation of Islam, Malcolm came to appreciate the radical potential of Christianity through the example of the Black Church and leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Yet, he remained critical. For Malcolm, Christianity—even stripped of white supremacy—remained inadequate for revolution. Its foundational commitment to non-violence rendered it incapable of confronting the brutality of white supremacy with the necessary force.

Islam and Principled Violence

In contrast, Malcolm X saw Islam as a religion uniquely equipped to bring about genuine transformation in society. During his pilgrimage to Mecca, he witnessed a spiritual community free from racial divisions—something radically different from the American experience. Islam, in his eyes, was a faith rich with moral, ethical, political, and economic principles capable of forming a just and equitable society.

Crucially, Malcolm believed Islam was committed to *principled violence*—not senseless bloodshed, but a willingness to use force when justice demanded it. For him, true revolution could not be founded on “turn the other cheek” or “love your enemies.” History showed that revolutions were never won through passive resistance alone.

Non-Violence

Arguing for the violence to be the only effective measure against oppression may have created a mental scuffle among people who aware about the independence struggle of India. However, for non-violence to be effective against oppression, Malcolm argued, the oppressor must possess a conscience. There must be a sense of shame capable of being awakened. This was the key to Gandhi’s success in India—he appealed to the British people’s sense of morality and shame, eventually forcing change.

But in the United States, Malcolm believed, white supremacy lacked that shame. There was no moral pressure point to activate. In such a context, non-violence was not only ineffective—it will be “idiotic” and self-defeating. The struggle for liberation could not wait for the conscience of the oppressor to awaken.

Bring Down the Edifice

To eliminate the tyranny of systemic racism and inequality, Malcolm concluded that the entire edifice had to be brought down—not reformed, but dismantled. This required a religion of action, a faith grounded in radical praxis and committed believers unwilling to compromise on justice, especially the freedom and dignity of African Americans.

He envisioned a spiritual revolution—a faith that did not simply comfort the afflicted but empowered them to rise, resist, and reclaim their humanity.

This tragic tale serves as a metaphor for western society. Just as the cat was oblivious to the self destructive nature of her actions, western society has undermined the importance of having independent moral principles that play a major role in human affairs like family, finance, politics, gender roles, and social practices. And discarded the need for unvarying morality for a firm society to be built. In doing so, it is metaphorically drinking its own blood, leading to its own demise.

Nowadays, the same condition of the cat can be seen literally in every person, irrespective of nations, races, beliefs, and cultures, as we have continuously been indoctrinated to believe that the supremacy of western modernity and the western definition of moral principles are the natural progression of human affairs. This leads people to blindly follow and adopt the culture as a universal standard. Moreover, the existing strong cultural standards possessed by various communities and groups all around the world are overpowered and brought to heel by the western interventions disguised as trends that are mainly aligned with mere individual interest.

IS ROBBING A BANK MORALLY RIGHT?

Absolutely not. Rewind the question again: is it objectively wrong to rob a bank? Now things get a little bit tricky. In order to answer this question, the place to start is the word objective. A basic definition of the term refers to considering fact without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions. In the case of morals, objective means that morality is not dependent on or based on one’s mind or personal feelings. In this sense, it is outside of one’s personal limited faculties. Like the earth going around the sun, are regardless of what we feel about them. Therefore, if these morals are outside us, they have to be grounded. In other words, they need a foundation. If objective morals do not depend on our limited faculties, then answers to the following questions are required: Where did they come from?, What explains their nature?, In order to answer these questions, a rational foundation is required.

OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Here is exactly where Islam brings the idea of objective morality. When Islam says that objective morality is free from individual opinions and interests, that means no human intervention as well as no future amendments are possible in the principles that are preserved message with a pragmatic view on the various aspects of human life. Additionally, objective morality requires an authority on which people have unwavering faith and are ready to follow it unconditionally and unquestionably; that is only possible by a supreme entity, God. 

Relying on God for a firm morality seems a bit awkward for some people, as it puts the rational ability of the believer to distinguish the difference between right and wrong at stake. However, morality without God is nothing but some social conventions, like we heard one should not fart in public. Further more, social conventions are created by people, so those are not independent and unchangeable; moreover, they have no entity to be enforced and preserved; as a result, they will keep evolving with a society

To illustrate this further, ask a hundred Muslims, "What is the decent dress for men and women?" You will get a single and firm answer. Now, ask the same question to a hundred non-Muslims, and you will get a thousand enormous subjective assertions. This is known as the moral obscurity of non-muslims, which gradually ends in a state of moral inferiority.

While Muslims have rules, non-Muslims have conventions. When rules are enforced by religion, conventions are enforced by culture. Breaking of moral principles is considered a sin among Muslims, whereas it is a cultural evolution among non-Muslims. When there is a clear distinction between morality and immorality in the way of life of a Muslim, non-Muslims consider that as mere cultural differences and individual interests..

When non-muslims rever all other immoral cultural practices and show no hesitance to adopt them. Muslims think it is the deviation from the right path.

IMPOSED HIJAB

The hijab is one of such moral dress standards for women, imposed by Islam, and it has been getting massive criticism from the so-called progressive people for being firm in it. And one of the prominent allegations against hijab is that it has been imposed by men to oppress and establish dominancy over women; however, this argument contradicts historical evidence of the exercise of oppression in a male-dominated society, as it is a well-known fact that men love to look into naked women’s bodies, for the same reason corporations use half-naked women for their advertisements to get more attention from customers. In world history, no male-dominated society in authority has ever tried to oppress and subjugate women by making them wear extra layers of clothes. So, Islam privatises women’s bodies and refrains women from being objects of attraction.

DEPENDENCY OF RATIONALITY

Objective morality and rational morality are not similar because morality derived from rational analysis still requires some subjective theories to support the principle. For instance, is killing a five-year-old morally wrong? Everyone says yes, but if we ask the same question with a why in the beginning, for example, why is killing a five-year-old kid morally wrong?. and the end answer will be that “every life has the right to live on this planet,” which is also a subjective notion. Here, things get tricky because none can answer this question without subjective or generally understood theory, which cannot be justified with any rational or scientific method. Therefore, we can understand that rationality cannot be sustained without taking a generally accepted principle as the basis for its analysis. For instance, principles like “every life has the freedom to live on this planet, so ceasing it from doing so is a wrongful act” can be considered as generally accepted principles to dictate that killing an innocent is wrong. Surprisingly, these generally accepted principles need to be enforced by some powerful entity or institution, such as culture, belief, and authorities, to make people unanimously agree and follow them. When institutions like culture, beliefs, or authorities can be changed by various factors like majoritarianism and capitalism, the widely accepted principles on which the rational principles are relied on can also be changed in favour of the existing institution in power.

In conclusion, that is why objective morality plays the important role by having God and his messages on human life as the source for the principles to be derived and grounded.

Writer’s Note:

Dear Readers,

The views expressed in this article are a blend of my personal perspectives and insights drawn from the book titled The Divine Reality by Hamza Andreas Tzortzi. I highly recommend reading the book for more comprehensive exploration of the topics discussed here.

-ajmalahmedh

-

If we look into the origin of modern atheism more closely and the arguments they have against religious belief, we can understand the absolute absurdity and rational impairment that are being camouflaged with the farrago of scientific data presented by the well-known proponents of atheism.

The Origin of Atheism

Atheism linguistically means someone who doesn’t believe in God or gods. This term was first used by Greek scholar Sir John Cheke in a translation of Plutarch’s On Superstition. Now, atheism is one of the fastest-growing social and intellectual movements. The past twenty years have featured an increase in people who describe themselves as atheists or non-religious. Additionally, modern atheist writers and academics, including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Dan Dennet, have extensively promoted this movement. Their books have become bestsellers, and thousands have viewed their public lectures allegedly debunking the religious arguments of divine existence.

The late Christopher Hitchens argues that “religion poisons everything.” Sam Harris asserts “the days our religious identities are clearly numbered,” and Richard Dawkins maintains that “God is delusion.”

The Absurdity

However, their belief in the non-existence of God itself has, surprisingly, no positive arguments or scientific grounds, according to academics in this regard, which means every person who identifies themselves as an atheist is either currently not convinced by any theistic or religious arguments or they just do not believe in God’s existence by mere choice. Atheists are well-known for their knowledge claim that there is no God. However, such a claim requires rational justifications and at least some arguments to back it up. Therefore, this type of claim needs to have evidence for its position.

This leads us to the conclusion, even at the very beginning of the conversation, that by not being able to produce any evidence for their claim, the claim itself has become subjective. This ideology seems to be far removed from atheism and entering the realm of agnosticism. Holding such an agnostic position would imply that if a good argument were offered for God’s existence, they would have no choice but to accept it unconditionally. If an atheist disbelieves based on mere choice, in the absence of any rational investigation, then how does that differ from any other belief, whether it is the belief in fairy tales or unicorns?

The Burden of Truth

Why does atheism need to provide evidence for its claim? can appear to be a good question until the concept of self-evident truth comes into the discussion. Imagine if one of your friends is telling you something strange that you haven’t heard before: “You know, what you did until today and all the way back from the past actually didn’t happen. It is just an illusion in your head.” Would you be able to believe such an assertion?. As a rational person, you would not agree with this, and instead of trying to prove that the past is something that really happened, you would ask for evidence to prove his assertion, as the existence of the past is something you, like the rest of the rational people out there, regard as having actually occurred

Similarly, if an atheist asserts, “You know God does not exist, There is no evidence for his existence.” Before we present different positive cases for God’s existence, shouldn’t we be probing why questioning God’s existence is the assumed default question?. It shouldn’t be: Does God exist? Rather, it should be, what reason do we have to reject his existence?. Even though there are multiple reasons to support the existence of God, the rational default position is belief in the divine. Otherwise, it would be similar to questioning the reality of the events of the past without any good reason to do so. In this perspective, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of atheists.

The False Claims of Atheism

Atheism is believed to be derived from rationality, as its proponents seem to be scientists and intellectuals in nature. However, this is a false notion spread by this group to get support from a wider audience that has unshakable faith in the reliability of science. They claim atheism to be the natural disposition or innate neutral state of human beings. Nonetheless, the history of atheism tells another story, which begins with the emergence of modern atheism as a totally new concept in a complete theistic society.

Secondly, religion has no evidence to prove the existence of God, which was one of the most prominent arguments of atheists, which we have already debunked above. Even so, as a part of the argument, if science were to be asked about the existence of an alien, it would stay neutral as long as the scientific parameters were limited to observing the alien experience; therefore, something beyond observation cannot be certainly rejected or accepted through the modus operandi of science. However, the self-proclaimed light bearers of scientific temper resorted to compromising the basic methodology of staying neutral on concepts like the existence of a supreme supernatural entity that is simply beyond human senses and empirical measurements

The Irrational Naturalism

According to the assertions of atheism, nothing has been purposefully designed or created. It is all based on cold, random, and non-conscious physical processes and causes, known as naturalism. However, from a theistic perspective, the existence of a supernatural entity, to whom all beyond-measurable activities of this world are accounted for, cannot be fully fathomed as the knowledge of the universe is limited to human senses. Therefore, metaphysical questions like the divine existence must always be approached with rational thinking and coherent faculty that cannot deny the presence of some supernatural process behind the creation of all complex worldly matters and beings and the fine-tuning involved in its creation.

In the 1970s, cosmologists discovered the intriguing phenomenon of fine-tuning, which explicitly demonstrated that the universe’s laws and arrangements seemed designed and fine-tuned so that complex conscious life, like human beings, could exist. The discovery of the double helix structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 is one of the clear illustrations of the fine-tuning of the extraterrestrial intervention, as they concluded even being atheists. The position of our planet, which is one of the life-supporting features of our planet Earth, is located in an area known as the habitable zone. This zone is defined as the region where heating from the central star provides a planetary surface temperature at which water in the ocean neither freezes over nor exceeds its boiling point. Similarly, Jupiter’s gravitational pull, position, and size of moon are demonstrating examples of fine-tuning for those who think.

The Eternal Dilemma

The dilemma posed by the rational approach towards the argument of the eternal existence of either the universe or God forced atheism and theism to take a position on either of these two concepts. Something must have always existed. Now there are two obvious choices: God or the universe. Since the universe began and is dependent on nature, it has always been limited by the existence of time, space, and matter. It cannot have eternally existed. Therefore, something that has always existed must be God, which is beyond the same limiting constraints of time, space, and matter. Ultimately, theists and atheists can agree on one thing: if anything at all exists, there must be something preceding it that has always existed independently. How did this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is that it never came to be; it was always God.

Thus, we can conclude that there exists an uncreated creator for everything that is created, which is the supreme supernatural entity God.

ഇസ്മായിൽ ഹനിയ്യ, ഈ പേര് കേൾക്കുമ്പോൾ ആദ്യം ഓർമവരുന്നത് ഇസ്രായേലിന്റെ ആക്രമണത്തിൽ തന്റെ മൂന്ന് മക്കളും കുടുംബവും കൊല്ലപ്പെട്ട വാർത്ത അറിഞ്‌ ശബ്ദം പോലും ഇടറാതെ കൈകൾ ഉയർത്തി സർവ്വ ശക്തനായ അല്ലാഹുവിനെ സ്തുതിക്കുന്ന ഒരു നേതാവിനെയാണ്.

ഇസ്മായിൽ ഹാനിയ ജനിക്കുന്നത് 1962-ൽ ഗസയിലെ ഒരു അഭയാർത്ഥി ക്യാമ്പിലാണ്, തന്റെ 21- ആം വയസ്സിൽ അറബിക് സാഹിത്യത്തിൽ ബിരുദ വിദ്യാർതിയായി അൽ- അസർ ഇൻസ്റ്റിറ്റ്യൂട്ടിൽ പഠനം ആരംഭിക്കുകയും തുടർന്ന് ഹമാസിന്റെ ആദ്യ രൂപമായിരുന്ന Student bloc -ൽ അംഗത്വം നേടുകയും പ്രവർത്തനം ആരംഭിക്കുകയു ചെയ്തു. അതിന്റെ പരിണിത ഫലമെന്ന് പറയട്ടെ അദ്ദേഹത്തിന് ഇസ്രായേൽ ജയിലിൽ പല തവണ ശിക്ഷ അനുഭവിക്കേണ്ടി വന്നു.

1987 -ൽ ആദ്യമായി ഇസ്രായേലിനെതിരെ ഒന്നാം ഇൻതിഫാദ പൊട്ടിപ്പുറപ്പെടുകയും ഹമാസ് എന്ന ഫലസ്തീൻ പ്രതിരോധ സേനക്ക് രൂപകല്പന ചെയ്യുകയും ചെയ്തു. എന്നാൽ നിർഭാഗ്യവച്ചാൽ ശിക്ഷ കഴിഞ്ഞ് ജയിൽ മോചിതരായ ഹനിയ്യ അടക്കമുള്ള ഫലസ്‌തീൻ പോരാളികളു നേതാക്കളും ലബനാനിലേക് നാട് കടത്തപ്പെട്ടു. ലബനാനിൽ കഴിഞ്ഞു കൂട്ടിയ ഒരു വർഷം കൊണ്ട് ആ സംഗത്തിന് മറ്റു രാഷ്ട്രങ്ങൾക്കിടയിൽ വലിയ ജനശ്രദ്ധ നേടാൻ കഴിഞു.

1993-ൽ ഫലസ്‌തീൻ ലിബറേഷൻ ഓർഗാണൈസേഷനും (PLO) ഇസ്രായേലും തമ്മിൽ ഒപ്പുവച്ച ഓസ്‌ലോ ഉടമ്പടിക്ക് (ഓസ്‌ലോ Accord) ശേഷം ഹനിയ്യ തന്റെ 31- ആം വയസ്സിൽ ഗസയിലേക് തിരിച്ചെത്തി ഇസ്ലാമിക്‌ യൂണിവേഴ്സിറ്റിയിൽ ഡീൻ ആയി സേവനം ആരംഭിച്ചു.

തുടർന്നുള്ള വർഷങ്ങൾ ഇസ്മായിൽ ഹനിയ്യ എന്ന ശക്തനായ നേതാവിന്റെ ഉയർച്ചയായിരുന്നു. ഹാമസ് സ്ഥാപക നേതാവ് ഷെയ്ഖ് അഹ്‌മദ്‌ യാസീൻ ന്റെ വിശ്വസ്ഥ ശിഷ്യൻ ആയി ഏറെ കാലം ഫലസ്തീൻ മോചനത്തിന് വേണ്ടി കരുക്കൾ നീക്കിയ ഹാനിയ 2001- ലെ രണ്ടാം ഇൻതിഫാദയുടെ തുടക്കത്തോടെ ഹമാസിന്റെ മുതിർന്ന നേതൃത്വങ്ങളിൽ ഒരാളായി മാറി. എന്നാൽ 2003- ൽ തുടർച്ചയായി ഉണ്ടായ ഇസ്രായേൽ കൊലപാതകശ്രമങ്ങളിൽ നിന്നും സാഹസികമായി രക്ഷപ്പെട്ട ശൈഖ് അഹ്‌മദ്‌ യാസീൻ പിന്നീട് ഒരുദിവസം സുബഹി നമസ്കാര ശേഷം പള്ളിയിൽ നിന്നിറങ്ങവേ ഇസ്രായേലി ഹെലികോപ്റ്ററാൽ കൊല്ലപ്പെട്ടു.

എന്നാൽ അതിലൊന്നും തളരാത്ത ഹാനിയ 2006-ൽ ഫത്താ ഗവണ്മെന്റ്നെ തോൽപിച്ചു കൊണ്ട് ഫലസ്തീന്റെ പ്രധാന മന്ത്രിയായി അധികാരമേറ്റു. എന്നാൽ തുടർന്ന് ഫത്താ മൂവേമെന്റും ഹമാസും തമ്മിൽ നിരന്തരം ഉണ്ടായ സംഘർഷം ഗാസ മുനമ്പിൽ മാത്രമായി ഹമാസിന് അധികാരം ചുരുക്കേണ്ടി വന്നു. ആ പ്രതിസന്ധികളിലും തോറ്റുകൊടുക്കാൻ തെയ്യാറല്ലാത്ത ഫലസ്‌തീൻ ജനതക്ക് പ്രതീക്ഷയും ആത്മവിശ്വാസവും ഹനിയക്ക് നൽകാൻ സാധിച്ചു.

എന്നാൽ പിന്നീടങ്ങോട്ട് പടിഞ്ഞാറൻ രാഷ്ട്രങ്ങൾ ഹനിയയെ നിരന്തരം വേട്ടയാടാൻ തുടങ്ങി, അതിന്റെ ഭാഗമായി 2018-ൽ അമേരിക്കന് പ്രസിഡന്റ്‌ ഡോണാൾഡ് ട്രമ്പ് ഹനിയ്യയെ തീവ്രവാദിയായി ചാപകുത്തി പല രാജ്യങ്ങളിലേക്കുമുള്ള യാത്ര വിലക്കുകൾ ഏർപ്പെടുത്തി. തുടർന്ന് 2019-ൽ, ഹനിയ്യ നേതൃത്വ സ്ഥാനത്തു നിന്ന് മാറുകയും ശേഷം ഫലസ്‌തീനിൽ നിന്ന് അയൽ രാജ്യങ്ങളിൽ താത്കാലികമായി താമസം ഉറപ്പിച്ച് ഹമാസിന്റെ നയതന്ത്രഭരമായ പരിപാടികളുടെ നേതൃത്വം ഏറ്റെടുത്തു.

എന്നാൽ 2023 ഒക്ടോബർ 7- ന് ഹമാസ് നടത്തിയ ആക്രമണത്തിന് പകരമായി ആരംഭിച്ച ഇസ്രായേലിന്റെ വ്യോമാക്രമണം കവർന്നെടുത്ത അനേകം ജീവനുകളിൽ ഹാനിയയുടെ 60 -ൽ കൂടുതൽ വരുന്ന കുടുംബങ്കങ്ങളും ഉൾപ്പെട്ടു എന്ന വിവരമാണ് ആ നേതാവ് അറിയുന്നത്. എന്നാൽ ശബ്ദം പോലും ഇടറാതെ ഹാനിയ സർവ്വശക്തനായ അല്ലാഹുവിനെ സ്തുതിച്ചു.

ആ ശക്തനായ നേതാവ് ഇന്ന് ഇറാനിന്റെ തലസ്ഥാനമായ തെഹറാനിൽ ഇസ്രായേൽ നടത്തിയ മിന്നൽ ആക്രമണത്തിൽ ദുനിയാവിലെ അദ്ദേഹത്തിന് സർവ്വശക്തൻ ഏല്പിച്ച അമാനത് പൂർത്തിയാക്കി രക്ഷിതാവിങ്കലേക് യാത്രയായി. ഇസ്മായിൽ ഹനിയ്യ ഒരു പാടഭാഗമാണ്, അടിച്ചമർത്തപ്പെടുന്ന ഓരോ ജനതയും ഓർത്തിരിക്കേണ്ട പോരാട്ടത്തിന്റെ, വിശ്വാസത്തിന്റെ, നേതൃത്വത്തിന്റെ പാടഭാഗം.

Although the heinous act was condemned globally by many Islamic countries and scholars, it was justified and condoned by liberal, atheistic, and islamophobic groups by asserting the right of a person to criticise anything. As a rational understanding goes, when a book is publicly desecrated and burned to ashes instead of being subjected to constructive criticism and questions, it may definitely contain something unusual that some people don't want ordinary people to know about it. Right?. Let's dig in!

What is in the Quran!

The Holy Quran, which was revealed to Mohammed, peace and blessings upon him, 1400 years ago, is always a matter of discussion among non-muslims all around the world as it is seen as the only strange book in the universe. Besides its strangeness, a lot of misconceptions among non-muslims exist regarding its chapters, verses, and itself.

If we look seriously into the Quran, we can find only 3% of the divine commandments and prohibitions; 97% of the Quran teaches ethics, morality, values, the purpose of life, the relationship between man and the Lord, scientific statements, and other truths. Still, however, some people have issues with its content when it is a perfect guide from the 6th century for a human being to lead his life in the right way, as many Muslims claim the Quran (Islam) is a way of life, like it directs a ruler and a husband at the same time in managing their own chores wisely and judiciously.

I personally don't think that anybody really has a problem with the mere divine commandments and prohibitions in the holy Quran. Rather, the problem they have is the major part of the Holy Quran where it talks about ethics, morality, purpose, and other truths about humans, which is a recipe for building an intractable, strong society consisting of high-value men and women. This Islamic way of life can create a generation of modest men and women, which will be difficult for the people of the matrix (the devil) to repress and succeed in their plot. This moral enlightenment of people, especially public figures and well-known celebrities, was becoming a new trend, specifically in western countries, which became a threat to the matrix. Influencers praising the Quran and being its proponents in the world encouraged the masses to read and understand the Quran and the Islamic faith.

Western Proponents

Andrew Tate, Jay Kim, Jay Palfrey, Mr. Whatwa, etc. are some of the recent social media influencers with a lot of followers who converted to Islam. Among those people, Andrew Tate, a millionaire businessman and a social media influencer, was the most sensational personality, whose conversion drew a lot of people into the Islamic religion, which really screwed the matrix and made them target those outspoken influencers.

The Quran may be desecrated and publicly insulted until the last hour, and the people who follow its teaching may also be alienated and criticised in the future. However, it is a miracle that the more they insult the book, the more people will praise it. The more they tear its pages, the more people go to read it; the more they burn it into ashes, the more people love it. That is the book of Allah that he gifted to his beloved prophet, and he knows best how to raise it.

Even if all the copies of the Quran are burned and disappear from the face of this world by the people of ignorance, a single hafiz or hafiza children, among the 100 million hafiz Muslims walking on earth, can easily bring it back to its original state whatsoever. That is how powerful and structured the Quran and Islam are. So i would rather suggest, better not to drag the quran towards public if anyone don't want people to be its followers.

ക്യാബിനറ്റ് മന്ത്രി സഭ ഇന്ത്യയിലെ മാതൃമരണനിരക്കും, പോഷകാഹാരക്കുറവും ഇല്ലാതാക്കുന്നതിന് ഇന്ത്യയിലെ സ്ത്രീങ്ങളുടെ വിവാഹപ്രായം 18-ൽ നിന്നും 20- ആക്കി കൂട്ടിയത് അറിഞ്ഞല്ലോ അല്ലേ..?.

Subscribe now

മന്ത്രി സഭ ഈ നിലപാടിൽ എത്തിയത് വലിയ ചർച്ചകളിലൂടെയും, വിദ്യാർത്തികളിൽ നിന്നും, ശൈശവ വിവാഹം ഏറ്റവും കൂടുതൽ രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയുട്ടുള്ള സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളിൽ നിന്നും അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളെടുത്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് എന്ന് പരക്കെ പറയപ്പെടുന്നു. എന്നാൽ വിവാഹപ്രായം ഉയർത്തുന്നതിലൂടെ മാതൃമരണനിരക്കും പോഷകാഹാരക്കുറവും ഇല്ലാതാക്കാൻ സാധിക്കില്ല. കൂടാതെ ഇത് സ്വന്തം ജീവിധപങ്കാളിയെ തെരെഞ്ഞെടുക്കാൻ ഉള്ള ഒരു പെൺകുട്ടിയുടെ പക്വതയെ ചെറുതായി കാണാലാണ് ചെയ്യുന്നത്. പ്രത്യേകിച് മതവും ജാതിയും ഒന്നും കണക്കിലെടുക്കാത്തവരുടെ.

എന്നാൽ യഥാർത്ഥത്തിൽ സ്ത്രീകൾ മരിക്കുന്നത് പ്രസവസമയത്തോ അതിനുശേഷമോ ഉണ്ടാവുന്ന രക്തം നഷ്ടപ്പെടുന്ന പ്രശ്നം കാരണമാണ്. ഈ അവസ്ഥ കൂടുതലായും കാണപ്പെടുന്നത് അനീമിയ ബാധിച്ചിട്ടുള്ള സ്ത്രീകളിലാണ്. 2015 കണക്കുപ്രകാരം ഗർഭ ധാരികളാകുന്ന ആകെ സ്ത്രീകളിൽ 50 ശതമാനവും അനീമിയ ബാധിച്ചിട്ടുള്ള വരാണ്. ലോകത്തിലെ ആകെ അനീമിയ ബാധിച്ചിട്ടുള്ള അവരുടെ കണക്കെടുത്തു നോക്കിയാൽ ഏറ്റവും കൂടുതൽ ഇന്ത്യയിലാണ്.

യഥാർത്ഥത്തിൽ മാതൃ ആരോഗ്യം നിശ്ചയിക്കുന്നത് മേന്മയുള്ള പൊതു ആരോഗ്യ കേന്ദ്രങ്ങൾ, കുറഞ്ഞ ദാരിദ്ര്യ നിരക്ക് ഭക്ഷ്യസുരക്ഷ എന്നിവയാണ്. ഇന്ത്യയിലെ മാതൃമരണനിരക്ക് എന്നു പറയുന്നത് ആസാമിൽ 100000 അമ്മമാർ പ്രസവിക്കുമ്പോൾ 215 പേർ മരണപ്പെടുന്നു. എന്നാൽ കേരളത്തിൽ 100000 അമ്മമാർ പ്രസവിക്കുമ്പോൾ 43 പേർ മരണപ്പെടുന്നു. ഇന്ത്യയിൽ ഏറ്റവും കൂടുതൽ മാതൃമരണ നിരക്ക് രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയ സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളാണ് ഉത്തർപ്രദേശ്, മധ്യപ്രദേശ്, രാജസ്ഥാൻ.

ദാരിദ്ര്യം കാരണം മതിയായ പോഷകാഹാരവും മൂലകങ്ങളുടെയും അപര്യാപ്തതയാണ് മാതൃ മരണനിരക്ക് കൂടുന്നതിന് പ്രധാനകാരണം.

1978 നിലവിൽ വന്ന ശർത്ഥ ആക്ട് പ്രകാരം സ്ത്രീകളുടെ വിവാഹപ്രായം 16 വയസ്സിൽ നിന്നും 18 വയസ്സാക്കി കൂട്ടുകയും പുരുഷൻമാരുടേത് 21 വയസ്സ് ആയി കൂട്ടുകയും ചെയ്തു. എന്നാൽ ഈ നിയമങ്ങളൊന്നും സ്ത്രീകളെ 18 വയസ്സ് ആകുന്നതിനു മുൻപ് വിവാഹം കഴിച്ച് അയക്കുന്നതിൽ നിന്ന് തടഞ്ഞില്ല. അതായത് വിവാഹപ്രായം കൂട്ടുന്നതിലൂടെ ശൈശവവിവാഹം ഇല്ലാതാക്കാൻ സാധിക്കില്ല.

18 വയസ്സിനു മുൻപ് പെൺകുട്ടിയെ വിവാഹം കഴിപ്പിച്ചു വിടുന്നതിൽ മാതാപിതാക്കൾ അവളുടെ സംരക്ഷണമാണ് ഉറപ്പുവരുത്തുന്നത്, ഒരുപക്ഷേ അവളുടെ വിദ്യാഭ്യാസമാണ് ഏൽപ്പിക്കുന്നത്. ഇതിലൂടെ ദരിദ്ര കുടുംബങ്ങൾ അവരുടെ ചിലവുകളിൽ നിന്നും രക്ഷപ്പെടുന്നു.

വിവാഹ പ്രായം ഉയർത്തിയതിൽ സന്തോഷിക്കുന്ന കുറേ വിദ്യാർത്ഥികൾ ഉണ്ടാവാം കുറെ മാതാപിതാക്കൾ ഉണ്ടാവാം എന്നാൽ ഈ നിയമത്തിന്റെ കുടുക്കിൽ പെട്ടു ശ്വാസംമുട്ടുന്ന വലിയൊരു വിഭാഗം നമ്മുടെ രാജ്യത്ത് കഴിയുന്നുണ്ട്. ഭക്ഷ്യസുരക്ഷയും ജോലി സാധ്യതകളും നല്ല വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ സൗകര്യങ്ങളും നല്ല പുരോഗമനവും നടപ്പിലാക്കേണ്ട സർക്കാർ കേവലം ചെറിയചെറിയ നിയമങ്ങൾ കൊണ്ടുവന്നു സാധാരണക്കാരെ വീർപ്പുമുട്ടിക്കുകയാണ്.

 ഈ നിയമത്തിലൂടെ സ്ത്രീകളുടെ ഉന്നമനം ലക്ഷ്യമാക്കുന്നതിലുപരി 
രാജ്യത്തിന്റെ അങ്ങോളമിങ്ങോളം സർക്കാരിന്റെ പിന്തുണയോടെ നടന്നുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന പല മനുഷ്യ വേട്ടയും ജാതി മത സംഘർഷങ്ങളും ഇതിന്റെ എല്ലാം മറവിൽ നടത്തുന്ന പല തട്ടിപ്പുകളും വെളിച്ചത്തു വരുന്ന ഘട്ടത്തിൽ ജനങ്ങളുടെ ശ്രദ്ധ തിരിക്കുന്ന ചില നിയമങ്ങളിൽ ഒന്ന് മാത്രമാണ് സ്ത്രീകളുടെ വിവാഹപ്രായം അധികരിപ്പിക്കലും.