While I generally agree about personal responsibility, sovereignty, and property, and that no government should overreach and take away a millimeter out of any of these. The Hadith itself had a continuation, four examples in which this "shepherding" applies, and the first of which is that the leader is responsible for his people. The last of which is that a servant is responsible to keep his master's house affairs in order. These two examples stand against the claim of "ultimate anarchist manifesto" in your post. Unless I'm missing something, this hadith doesn't support your claim. My personal understanding is that everyone has a responsibility, top of the pyramid, all the way to the bottom. And they'll be judged by how well they take this responsibility.

اللهم امين

Fascinating....

Maybe one day an effort will be done to recover the names of all the nameless Gazans and Palestinians slaughtered by jews. That's the only bright side of this. 🤷🏽‍♂️

"Gravest setback"? Call it "a drop in the ocean", you lying rat.

You have many provably wrong historical issues in your statement. First, In all other mandates in Arab lands, or anywhere else for that matter, no one forced other peoples onto the land. Only Palestine had to endure multiple migrations of jews from Europe. People of Palestine welcomed them before the Declaration and some time after it, until the jews started to become a force. Then they started to resist. Two, Syrians fought the French, so did Algerians. Iraqis eventually kicked out the Brits. So did all of Africa. Only the Palestinians had to fight two fronts, the Brits and the Jews. Had point 1 not happened, Palestine would've been free by resisting the occupation like every one else. Three, victorious Europeans decided among themselves how to divide the cake. Like what they did in in the Scramble to Africa, there were no considerations to local identities, culture, history, not even geography. So, yes, it is colonization part and parcel. Therefore, four, British mandate is a foreign occupation and a colonizing force by all means of the word. They came with soldiers, and ruled by fire. Again, the French called their rule over Syria a mandate, but were resisted as well. Your choice of Lebanon as an example is a red herring, and I will not discuss it. It's a different situation. Five, Jewish participation in "modern state institutions" was supported by the British simply because the jews were as European as much as the Brits. Palestinians tried to have their institutions that were more in line with their history and culture. But Brits saw that as competition, and suppressed it. Palestinians wanted to modernize the country and state their way, as is their right, but were fought over it. Six, Hitler, strawman argument, came in too late to the story. He has nothing to do with British mandate. In fact he had an agreement with Jews in Palestine at the time to send German jews there. So, Hitler did way more services to Israel than just a meeting with a Palestinian leader that lead to basically nothing. So, you can shove your hasbara false narrative somewhere else. It has no place here.

You have many provably wrong historical issues in your statement. First, In all other mandates in Arab lands, or anywhere else for that matter, no one forced other peoples onto the land. Only Palestine had to endure multiple migrations of jews from Europe. People of Palestine welcomed them before the Declaration and some time after it, until the jews started to become a force. Then they started to resist. Two, Syrians fought the French, so did Algerians. Iraqis eventually kicked out the Brits. So did all of Africa. Only the Palestinians had to fight two fronts, the Brits and the Jews. Had point 1 not happened, Palestine would've been free by resisting the occupation like every one else. Three, victorious Europeans decided among themselves how to divide the cake. Like what they did in in the Scramble to Africa, there were no considerations to local identities, culture, history, not even geography. So, yes, it is colonization part and parcel. Therefore, four, British mandate is a foreign occupation and a colonizing force by all means of the word. They came with soldiers, and ruled by fire. Again, the French called their rule over Syria a mandate, but were resisted as well. Your choice of Lebanon as an example is a red herring, and I will not discuss it. It's a different situation. Five, Jewish participation in "modern state institutions" was supported by the British simply because the jews were as European as much as the Brits. Palestinians tried to have their institutions that were more in line with their history and culture. But Brits saw that as competition, and suppressed it. Palestinians wanted to modernize the country and state their way, as is their right, but were fought over it. Six, Hitler, strawman argument, came in too late to the story. He has nothing to do with British mandate. In fact he had an agreement with Jews in Palestine at the time to send German jews there. So, Hitler did way more services to Israel than just a meeting with a Palestinian leader that lead to basically nothing. So, you can shove your hasbara false narrative somewhere else. It has no place here.

Passing by Cairo, on his way to Hajj, stayed for a month, he gave away so much gold to people there, he caused inflation in the whole city. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58480/was-mansa-musas-gold-as-serious-an-inflationary-problem-in-mamluk-egypt-as-is-p

البقرة آية رقم ١٠٠

طيب... كسمك

https://youtu.be/5TaIKp4efRE? قصيد لابن القيم...

Exactly. He won the votes, now back to the yard.

100%. In fact, every time I hear him speaking he sounds like a puppet. All questions catered to give easy sound bites, and media friendly. He totally feels like a set up for socialists to subsume Muslim New Yorkers into a socialist agenda; maybe even a larger contingent of American Muslims.

خالدًا مخلدًا في صحبة أبي جهل وفرعون..

Brilliant!

Yes... Tell me where you are buying this land, and I'll get one next to it ✌🏼