There is nothing reactionary or right-wing about this statement. It is common-sense logic. We need to stop with the "right-wing" labeling of everything that deviates from the current left-wing ideology.

If Abdul wins the race, Muslim Brotherhood wins the race. This is not a drill. We are slowing stepping towards islamofascism.

I joined in support yesterday!

It’s strange that he says that “a man had suffered a laceration to the head.” As if the laceration just spontaneously happened and had nothing to do with the “man with a butcher knife.”

Muslims, no matter how moderate, are ingrained from a very early age to do “Dawah”- a way to invite others to accept Islam. This is one of their very basic strategies in the West.

Moderate Muslims can’t unequivocally condemn violence done in Islam’s name because when faced with learning the truth about the religion they were raised in or defending it, they almost always choose the latter. Deep down, they are afraid that going down the former rabbit hole would destroy their entire worldview. The ones who go through it come out the other side as non-Muslims. That’s also why the Prophet ordered apostates killed - so they couldn’t share the truth.

If it was a @Tesla they would say that @elonmusk is was directly responsible for the deaths.

Everyone should be extremely concerned that 3 Supreme Court justices voted against keeping biological males out of biological female sports.

By @EdKrassen’s logic- 🍎 = 🍊

For most of my life, I never questioned the premise that the Qur’an was divine revelation. Like many Muslims, I began with the assumption that Muhammad was a prophet and that the Qur’an was the literal word of God. Any difficult passage, uncomfortable historical episode, or apparent contradiction had to have an explanation because the conclusion that the Qur’an came from God was already fixed. It wasn’t one argument that changed my mind. It was the accumulation of many small questions that eventually became impossible to ignore. The Question That Started It All Years ago, while attending a women’s Islamic study circle (halaqa), we discussed the rules governing mahram relationships—those close relatives before whom a woman is not required to wear hijab. Someone asked about adopted children. Would an adopted daughter have to cover around the father who raised her? Would a woman have to begin wearing hijab around an adopted son after he reached puberty? The answer was yes. According to classical Islamic law, adopted children are not legally equivalent to biological children. Consequently, they are generally not considered mahram solely by virtue of adoption. I remember feeling disturbed. If a father raises a daughter from infancy and loves her exactly as his own, why should religion suddenly require distance between them? The ruling seemed inconsistent with the very purpose of adoption. Years later, I discovered that this legal distinction is rooted directly in the story of Muhammad, Zayd, and Zaynab. The first time I heard someone openly question the story of Zayd and Zaynab wasn't in a mosque or a history book. It was Ayad Akhtar’s play, The Who & The What. The exchange lingered with me long after the play ended. Although at the time, I didn't pursue the question further. It was only a few years later that I remember being surprised to learn that there was a Qur'anic revelation associated with Muhammad's marriage to Zaynab. Zayd, Zaynab, and the End of Legal Adoption Before Islam, Muhammad had adopted Zayd ibn Harithah, who became known as Zayd ibn Muhammad. The Qur’an later abolished this practice: “Allah has not made your adopted sons your [true] sons... Call them by [the names of] their fathers; that is more just in the sight of Allah.” (Qur’an 33:4–5) Later in the same chapter, the Qur’an addresses Muhammad’s marriage to Zaynab after her divorce from Zayd: “When Zayd had finished with her, We married her to you so that there would be no difficulty for the believers concerning the wives of their adopted sons...” (Qur’an 33:37) Traditional Muslim commentators explain this episode as God’s correction of pre-Islamic adoption customs. That explanation is certainly possible. But another explanation seemed more plausible. If Muhammad wished to marry the former wife of the man whom society regarded as his son, redefining adoption removed the obstacle. The revelation solved the precise social problem confronting Muhammad. This was the first time I seriously wondered whether revelation might sometimes function as justification after the fact. A Pattern Rather Than an Isolated Incident Had this been the only example, I might have dismissed it. Instead, I began noticing a recurring pattern. Muhammad receives revelations permitting him marital privileges unavailable to other Muslim men (Qur’an 33:50–52). A chapter is revealed concerning a domestic dispute with his wives (Qur’an 66:1–5). His marriage to Zaynab receives explicit divine endorsement (Qur’an 33:37). Rules governing visitors to his home become scripture (Qur’an 33:53). Even before his marriage to Aisha, Muhammad said that an angel repeatedly showed her to him in dreams and declared, “This is your wife.” According to the canonical hadith, Aisha was six years old at the time of the marriage contract, and Muhammad claimed these dreams as a sign from Allah that the marriage was divinely ordained. Although this account comes from the hadith rather than the Qur'an, it similarly presents one of Muhammad's personal marriages as carrying divine approval. Individually, each episode has a traditional explanation. Collectively, I found the pattern difficult to ignore. Even within the hadith literature, there is a remarkable narration in which Aisha says to Muhammad: “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes.” This narration appears in both Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and is generally regarded by Muslim scholars as authentic. I found Aisha’s observation striking because it recognized something I had begun to notice myself: revelations often appeared in direct response to Muhammad’s personal circumstances. Revelation and Political Power The evolution of the Qur’an over Muhammad’s career also became significant to me. During the Meccan period, when Muhammad possessed little political power, the Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes patience, perseverance, and peaceful endurance. “To you your religion, and to me mine.” (109:6) “Be patient over what they say and avoid them graciously.” (73:10) “There is no compulsion in religion.” (2:256) After the migration to Medina, however, Muhammad was no longer merely a preacher. He was a political leader, military commander, judge, and head of state. The revelations increasingly addressed warfare, governance, taxation, criminal law, diplomacy, and relations with religious opponents. “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you...” (2:190) “Fight them until there is no persecution and religion is for Allah.” (2:193) “Fight those who do not believe in Allah... until they pay the jizyah.” (9:29) Muslim scholars generally explain this progression as God’s guidance adapting to changing historical circumstances. I eventually began asking a different question. If revelation consistently evolves alongside Muhammad’s changing needs and expanding authority, why should I assume the direction of causation runs from God to Muhammad rather than from Muhammad to revelation? Historical Method Professional historians do not ask whether miracles occurred. They ask what explanation best accounts for the surviving evidence. No historian can prove or disprove divine revelation. But historians can observe patterns. When a document repeatedly advances the interests of its principal speaker, historians naturally consider the possibility of human authorship. This is not unique to Islam. The same critical methods have been applied to the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, Buddhist texts, and countless other religious traditions. Applying those methods to Islam led me to conclusions I had never previously allowed myself to consider. Why I No Longer Begin with Faith Muslims often ask critics to explain individual verses. I used to do the same. Now I think the more important question is whether the overall pattern is better explained by divine revelation or by human composition. No single verse convinced me. No single hadith destroyed my faith. It was the cumulative weight of the evidence. The legal status of adoption. The marriage to Zaynab. Special revelations concerning Muhammad’s personal life. The evolution of revelation alongside political power. Each example can be explained individually. Together, they formed a pattern that I could no longer ignore. I recognize that faithful Muslims interpret these same sources differently. But I believe that intellectual honesty requires us to ask whether we would reach the same conclusions if we encountered these texts without already believing they were divine. That was the question I finally allowed myself to ask. And once I asked it, I found that the simplest explanation was no longer that Muhammad received revelation. It was that Muhammad authored it.

The first crack in my faith wasn't evolution or science. It was a question about adoption that no one could answer. That question eventually led me to ask whether the Qur'an was truly divine or written by Muhammad. Read my story. solainsf.substack.com/publis…

Oskar Schindler, a Nazi party member, saved over a 1000 Jews. Does that mean the Nazis were not that bad or Nazism was not a dangerous ideology? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_…

Overheard at the @MadMen_AMC Christmas party (Season 4- Episode 2) “If they pass Medicare, they won’t stop until they ban personal property.” @friedberg @RoKhanna