Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Paulo Kirk's avatar

Real words from real people, again, who was that Mashed Potatoes Face Anglo Saxon called Charlie Charlie Charlie?

Inside the Mind of a Militant: An Exclusive Interview with Georges Abdallah

https://youtu.be/aqJhFmjCs8k?si=IdpCLkBVFOtUK9r9

Expand full comment
Paulo Kirk's avatar

At least we got some backbone in the real, hmm, Muhammad . . . .

The Uncomfortable Answer

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), faced with the annihilation of his people, did not advise patience and Twitter activism. He did not retreat to his prayer mat and wait for celestial justice. He organized. He defended. He made it an obligation for his followers to resist. The Qur’an itself makes the duty explicit:

“What is the matter with you that you do not fight in the cause of God and for those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, ‘Lord, rescue us from this town of oppressors!’” (Qur’an 4:75).

This is not an obscure or fringe interpretation. It is the mainstream of Islamic tradition: defensive jihad is mandatory when a community faces extermination. For Muhammad, the defense of the vulnerable was not optional, not metaphorical, and certainly not reducible to therapy-speak about “resisting your lower self.” It was concrete. It was armed. It was non-negotiable.

So if one were to ask, honestly, “What would Muhammad do?” in the face of Gaza, the answer would be devastatingly clear: he would organize a protection force, and he would make defense a duty. He would not wring his hands about “messaging” or fret about what white liberals might think. He would not outsource morality to the State Department. He would stand between the slaughterer and the slaughtered.

And that is precisely why the question is not being asked.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts