#islam rules and regulations

[a-journey-to-true-self]

Unveiling the Puzzle: Understanding Islam in Today's World

[digitalislamicguide]

New Ramadan 2024 Iftar Rules Announced for Mecca's Grand Mosque

Saudi authorities have outlined specific regulations for individuals and groups wishing to offer Iftar meals to worshippers at the Grand Mosque in Mecca during Ramadan 2024. These guidelines aim to ensure a smooth and organized experience for all. Iftar Key points Online application: Benefactors can now electronically choose their preferred location within the mosque to distribute Iftar…

[polylocks-blog]

Hi! Your art is so gorgeous I’m very intrested, and Im sorry if this question is rude or tone deaf in any way, but why do you dont draw eyes? I know you've probably had already been asked this- and once again Im sorry if I sound annoying. I just never had seen a stylistic choice like this

Thank you! I'm happy you liked my Nigerian Miku drawing 😋 (didn't expect it to get so much attention in 2 days lol).

To answer your question, it is not a stylistic choice but a islamic choice has i am a muslim Who follow the rules and regulations of Islam ☪️🧕.

In Islam, we believe that drawing people/animals is imitating God's creation. So scholars of Islam advise us that if we were to draw characters, it's best to keep them faceless or with minimal facial features but no eyes. (Facial features give things life in a way, especially the eyes 👀)

DISCLAIMER!!! I'm just a regular Muslim on the internet, so to get a better understanding of this topic, I strongly recommend reading from many trusted Islamic websites or visiting a nearby Mosque, in ur area.

To conclude that would be the reason why I draw the way I draw! Your question was not annoying to answer at all, so thanks for asking :DD!

[fairuzfan]

hi there i hope you’re doing well 🖤 i have a question if you don’t mind answering. i did some donation commissions for Palestine a few months ago and planning to start them up again, but I was thinking of opening nsfw commissions this time around in hopes of expanding my reach to more niche corners. nsfw/erotic art is a primary focus of mine, however I can’t tell if it’s appropriate to open those kinds of comms for this particular cause. would this be okay? id much appreciate an answer, but ofc feel free to ignore ! ty

Honestly this is a tough question but not for appropriateness reasons. If the person you're helping raise money for is muslim, they might feel uncomfortable receiving money that was obtained through NSFW means since for many Muslims, receiving money through methods that are classified as haram is forbidden. Now this is from my own personal understanding of how money regulations work in Islam, but as I know it, many people if they knew the source of the money, would refuse it.

I would honestly avoid it especially if you're going to share a specific fundraiser. If anything, only because you don't want to be put in a situation where the other person is uncomfortable with it or theyre wanting to return the money. But again, I can't say I know for certain, as this is a literal life or death situation so people might feel different and in Islam, there's always an exception to the rule but... I'd err on the side of caution.

If someone who is more versed in Islamic law/regulations than me wants to weigh in, feel free.

I don't know how it is for Christian Ghazzawi though so I don't want to say anything about that.

[alpaca-clouds]

Utopia is always a Compromise

Someone asked me something in a private message, getting rather annoyed with my insistence that pretty much any and all conflict can happen in a Solarpunk world: "Well, what is an utopia to you?" And technically the answer is fairly simple: "An utopia is not perfect, but as good as things are going to be." And that is a claim I am going to stand by.

I spent yesterday pretty much the entire day writing a Solarpunk short story for an anthology. And that short story very much is about all that. About compromises. Because I somehow feel, that a lot of folks in the solarpunk sphere do not grasp two things about utopias:

Utopias are going to differ a lot depending on who you ask.

Because of this, any utopia is inherently political.

One person's utopia is going to be someone else's dystopia. Or to put it differently: Nazis imagine utopias too. In their utopias whole cultures have been eliminated, while a few rich white people rule over everyone else. To them this is what they imagine "the best possible world" to be.

Of course, Solarpunk inherently is a very left leaning genre and ideology. My Solarpunk utopia is anarcho-communist of course. In my Solarpunk utopia, there are no more nation states, and there are no more borders. Everyone who wants it is given room to live, and the other necessities to life: access to clean water, food, electricity, health care and education. The education system is a lot more self-directed by the students. And the electricity obviously is created by renewable ressources. Food is grown more locally. Indigenous people get their land back. All those things apply.

And yet, even my Solarpunk utopia has to deal with compromises. Because some things are always going to be a compromise.

Everyone who has been following me, knows that I am a prison and police abolitionist. And this means compromise. While I am 100% certain, that most crime can be prevented by giving people access to the ressources listed above, and allowing everyone a healthy life, some crime will still happen. People still will find reasons to argue. And in some cases arguments might result in violence, and in some extreme cases in death through violence. And some people will be more prone to that violence, for a variety of reasons. And I still think, they should not be "locked away", with maybe some extreme cases as exceptions. But all of that is always a compromise not everyone is going to agree with.

The story I wrote yesterday tackled two other topics in this regard, I have very complicated feelings about myself. Religion and mental health.

Most folks active in the solarpunk sphere are either agnostic or atheistic, or part of some more spiritual nature-related religions. And either group generally tends to have a big disdain for organized religion like Christianity or Islam. Which I - someone who has been abused for pretty much his entire youth through the means of Christianity - absolutely can understand. And yet, I do not think it would be right to overly regulate religion in a Solarpunk world. Even though a lot of those religions are very anti-anarchist in many regards, I also do not think it is the anarchist way to forbid someone else from believing in whatever feels right for them to believe. But that will undoubtedly bring further issues. Because where are you going to draw the line? No matter where you draw it, it is going to be a compromise. And some conflict will arise from it.

What if you have a religion that thinks queerness is bad? Or that thinks women belong in the kitchen? When is it okay to regulate a religion? Because you will not have political success going on and wanting to forbid the world largest religions. Trying to do that would be quite dystopian to me. You also cannot force them to completely change their doctrine, and even if you tried, they would probably still preach some of it behind closed doors. So what are you going to do? Which is the compromise you would take?

In the story I wrote, the main character was a queer guy who has grown up religious and struggled a lot with mental health issues because of it. Because he was queer and his family had been hateful towards that queerness because of their religion. Simply for the reason that controlling someone's personal believes was not right - but the family controlling that queer kid was not right either.

And mind you: We know that contrary to what atheists say, religion is not fully something people choose for themselves. There is some genetic component to religiosity. And if someone has grown up religious, you cannot just force that person to change their religion. That is absolutely akin to forcing a gay person to be straight. It is a violation of the person's rights and freedom, and will be very detrimental to their mental health.

But the mental health issue is another one that is a big topic for compromise in the anarchist way - and even in our modern democratic way.

Most progressive nations do not allow a person to be forcefully put into a psych ward, unless that person tried to commit suicide, or was outright physically violent towards another person. This is also the same bar that usually has to be cleared before someone has to be forced into therapy, and you basically cannot force anyone to take medication. But this is a compromise as well, that does harm as much as it does good.

Because even those mentally unwell people who might not be physically violent, still can very much be abusive towards others. Be it family members, partners, colleagues, roommates, friends, or themselves. And there can absolutely be an argument made that it would be better for everyone to set the bar lower before you can force someone into therapy, as they would probably even benefit themselves. Yet, we do not do that. Because technically it is everyone's personal freedom to decide, whether they want medical care or not - and because we have made the mistake in the past, of course, when a lot of people were forced into and kept under miserable conditions in psychological phacitilies. And we do not want any repeat of it.

But to come back to the story: The main character is abusive mostly towards himself - but this is obviously still harmful towards his partner and child. Nobody can force him to accept any help, after having made a bad experience in therapy before. But the status quo clearly also is not helping anyone.

And you will find those issues in a thousand of different ways. If you are anarchist, you are going to be against a lot of regulations, because those will always give some people power over other people, but where will you draw the line to regulate? Where will you allow some people to make decisions over other people?

Because in some regards this will always have to happen. And no matter how much you can argue: Every line is pretty much arbitrary. Which is why you will find some people argue for pretty every possible line you could draw in the sand. I can bring a thousand arguments for prison abolition - but the people who are for keeping prisons around, can bring a thousand arguments themselves. Sure, I think a lot of those arguments are bullshit. But they think the same about my arguments. And the big issue with those social topics is, that the science is not as firm as we wanted it to be. I will argue that there is some science clearly giving indications for prison abolition - but the prison abolition crowd such as myself does also assume a general scenario, that never has been tested in the modern world. We do not know if it would work. And I myself will openly say, that I have no fucking clue how to deal with issues like misogyny, where we have some data that suggests that once it has taken a certain hold even the best rehabilitation system will not erase it from someone's mind in about 30% of all cases. Sure, we might be able to get rid of it over the course of generations - but as an anarchist I also have to ask: "What do we do until then?" Because those misogynist men will kill and assault women.

I know it is easy to imagine that if only things were better, all human strive would end. But it simply is not the case. Partly, because some people will still struggle with one thing or another and develop bad ways of dealing with that struggle. And partly, because certain ideologies that lie at the root of so many issues cannot just be erased from the world from one day to the other. You cannot uninstall hate from someone's mind. You might through education get some people to be better - but not everyone. And this... Well, this will always create some issues.

[lucianalight]

I want to first apologize for my ignorance, which is why I am asking the question. 😅 Is music allowed in your country?

It's ok we are talking about a backward religious fascist regime ruling through sharia law and there are lots of misinformation and disinformation in media around it. The short answer is yes music is allowed but it's under strict state regulations and censorship. Like any other content really. Everything from art to even science. Art and artists specifically were one of the first groups that were harmed after 1979. Because one of the main things totalitarianism targets is individuality and the ways to express it. And the Islamic Regime is against anything that makes people happy or has anything from Iranian culture and history. They hate Iranians.

Their problem with music was mainly the fact that music and musical instruments and singing are haraam(forbidden and doing it is a sin in this context) in Islam. They believe music is the song of Satan. So for the first years after 1979 coup any song that wasn't a choir or classic and soft instrumental was forbidden. Paradoxical? Yeah because they couldn't remove everything music related and a culture that has always thrived on celebrations and dancing and music would not back off. People still listened to pop songs from before 1979 or new songs from the singers who had fled the country. In their cars and houses and parties. They would have been punished if they were found out and yet they still did it.

So forbidding it didn't work and they started to use the genres that they considered proper and traditional music in the state media. Slowly pop singers were permitted to release some of their songs. But they are all strictly regulated. The lyrics, the song, the theme everything can be rejected if some random person in the ministry of culture and Islamic guidance decides it has improper, anti religion and anti regime content. They still don't show any musical instrument on state tv because they're haraam. Moreover, women aren't allowed to sing or dance in public because it's haraam if a Na Mahram(I can only loosely translate it to stranger in this context. I'm not getting into a concept English doesn't have) man hears or sees them and get sexually provoked and commits sin.

So there are underground music and singers. Some leave the country just to be able to make the music they want freely. And the ones who don't and don't obey the laws and make music for people, for the victims of the regime get arrested, imprisoned and tortured like Toomaj Salehi.

Despite all of this, people still listen and sing and dance to "illegal music" openly and in public and at every chance they get, even though they can get arrested or beaten up and tortured. A lot of women do it without the forced hijab which has more serious consequences. It is a way of resistance and they can't erase us and our culture.

[kemetic-dreams]

All Abrahamic religions claim to be monotheistic, worshiping an exclusive God, although one who is known by different names. Each of these religions preaches that God creates, is one, rules, reveals, loves, judges, punishes, and forgives. 

However, although Christianity does not profess to believe in three gods—but rather in three persons, or hypostases, united in one essence—the Trinitarian doctrine, a fundamental of faith for the vast majority of Christian denominations, conflicts with Jewish and Muslim concepts of monotheism.

Since the conception of a divine Trinity is not amenable to tawhid, the Islamic doctrine of monotheism, Islam regards Christianity as variously polytheistic.

Judaism and Islam have strict dietary laws, with permitted food known as kosher in Judaism, and halal in Islam. These two religions prohibit the consumption of pork; Islam prohibits the consumption of alcoholic beverages of any kind. Halal restrictions can be seen as a modification of the kashrut dietary laws, so many kosher foods are considered halal; especially in the case of meat, which Islam prescribes must be slaughtered in the name of God. Hence, in many places, Muslims used to consume kosher food. However, some foods not considered kosher are considered halal in Islam.

With rare exceptions, Christians do not consider the Old Testament's strict food laws as relevant for today's church; see also Biblical law in Christianity. Most Protestants have no set food laws, but there are minority exceptions

The Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA) embraces numerous Old Testament rules and regulations such as tithing, Sabbath observance, and Jewish food laws. Therefore, they do not eat pork, shellfish, or other foods considered unclean under the Old Covenant. The "Fundamental Beliefs" of the SDA state that their members "are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures".

Proselytism

Judaism accepts converts, but has had no explicit missionaries since the end of the Second Temple era.

Judaism states that non-Jews can achieve righteousness by following Noahide Laws, a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God[k] as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah"—that is, all of humanity. It is believed that as much as ten percent of the Roman Empire followed Judaism either as fully ritually obligated Jews or the simpler rituals required of non-Jewish members of that faith.

Christianity encourages evangelism. Many Christian organizations, especially Protestant churches, send missionaries to non-Christian communities throughout the world. See also Great Commission. Forced conversions to Catholicism have been alleged at various points throughout history. The most prominently cited allegations are the conversions of the pagans after Constantine; of Muslims, Jews and Eastern Orthodox during the Crusades; of Jews and Muslims during the time of the Spanish Inquisition, where they were offered the choice of exile, conversion or death; and of the Aztecs by Hernán Cortés. Forced conversions to Protestantism may have occurred as well, notably during the Reformation, especially in England and Ireland

[taylovelinus]

every single time i see some goober on instagram (or here on tumblr for that matter) demonizing jews and israel, all I want to ask is:

1) what is your opinion on indigenous rights?

2) are jews white?

3) have you read hamas’ founding document (their 1988 charter)?

because these really get to the root of their hypocrisy. these so-called leftists always claim to support indigenous rights and land back movements until it comes to jewish people, because they have a fundamental lack of understanding of jewish history, jewish ethnic and racial ancestry and identity, and the relationship between jews and that land. (also it shows how American-centric their worldview is that they see this conflict almost exclusively through an overly-simplistic lens of color, wherein they see jews as white/white europeans and palestinians as a generalized, vague group of people of color who are only ever victims instead of as a complex group of people with their own history, culture, and identity). and you KNOW they haven’t read the charter because they sincerely believe this is all solely about “liberation from oppression” and have no idea about the very real and very violent direct, explicit antisemitism that is the very basis for Hamas’ ideology. their original charter completely denies that jewish people originate from the very same land they claim to originate from; they say that they only way for the three abrahamic faiths to coexist peacefully is under islamic rule and regulation (which if you know literally anything about how jews and christians were treated under dhimmi status you’d know that they were treated as second class citizens at best); They directly cite this verse from the quran as justification for a holy war against the jews — "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” (and don’t even get me started that the charter also explicitly states that women are valuable to the movement... but only “because they are makers of men” and because they stay home and rear the children.) I’ll concede that their 2017 revised charter states that they have “no problem with the Jews”, however this is moot when you can easily find video after video of young children saying explicitly that they want to kill Jews (yahood) and eradicate them from the land. these kids aren’t being taught to separate Jews and Israel/Zionism like Hamas leads people to believe (like they have convinced you westerners to believe); make no mistake, it’s not about cleansing the land of only "zionists", it is about eliminating all jewish people, denying their equal claim to the land, and denying their autonomy and right to self-determination.

i strongly, STRONGLY disagree with israel’s policies towards palestinians. i fucking hate Netanyahu, i hate his cronies, i hate that they court the far right in israel, i hate everything regarding how they have handled and continue to handle this entire conflict. and EVERY single other jew i know feels the same way. but jews have been stepped on and abused and slaughtered by their muslim/christian/pagan neighbors for literally thousands of years at this point. they were murdered en masse within living memory (and updated estimates put the death toll of the Holocaust at somewhere between 10-12 million, by the way. we are still finding mass graves in eastern europe all the time). jews deserve to govern themselves and live in their historical ancestral homeland. palestinians also deserve to live in peace and security, and israel has a responsibility to ensure that. but i will never ever support the complete erasure of the state of israel because i fundamentally believe in jewish sovereignty and indigenous rights, regardless of how much time they’ve been away, especially considering they were forced out and into a diaspora -- their leaving the land was not their choice. if the notion of jews standing up and making a space for themselves and ensuring their security upsets you, then perhaps the world should have actually treated them as human beings instead of slaughtering them. if we say that antisemitism is part of this conversation, and that the antisemitism should be condemned, and your first instinct is to either deny or deflect, you really need to examine your own antisemitism and how you have been thinking about this.

[beardedmrbean]

"Highly confidential" documents obtained by BBC Persian outline how Iran's government is trying to crack down on women who do not wear a hijab.

Two documents from April and May reveal the judiciary could set up "mobile courts" in public places like shopping malls to punish dress code violations.

They also show schoolgirls could face action by the education ministry and that celebrities could be jailed for up to 10 years for "promoting corruption".

Iran's government has not commented.

However, an Iranian newspaper that published a short section of one of the directives has been charged with publishing classified documents.

And some of the directives were included in the controversial "Hijab and Chastity Bill" that is currently being reviewed by the Guardian Council watchdog before becoming law.

Iran's parliament passed the bill in September - a year after protests erupted over the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman who was detained by morality police for allegedly not wearing her hijab properly.

Women burnt their headscarves or waved them in the air at the demonstrations against clerical rule, during which hundreds of people were reportedly killed in a brutal crackdown by security forces.

Although the unrest has subsided, a growing number of women and girls have stopped covering their hair in public altogether in open acts of defiance.

According to the leaked documents, Interior Minister Ahmad Vahidi approved a series of directives aimed at coordinating action by the government and other entities to address the issue of women not covering their hair in public - several months before parliament began debating the hijab bill in secret.

Security services - including the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) intelligence service, the ministry of intelligence, and the Security Police - were granted extensive powers to implement those directives, they show.

Some of the directives state that:

Police should "prepare the necessary documentation regarding schoolgirls who unveil" so that appropriate action can be taken through the education ministry

Celebrities, influencers and bloggers who do not cover their hair, or who "encourage unveiling" on social media, should face the charge of "promoting corruption", which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Officers will also be able to enter their homes and seize their computers and mobile phones

Officers can seal or shut down without permission any shops or other businesses not comply with the hijab regulations, and that any customers who violate them should be denied services, forced to leave, or handed over to the judiciary

Cafes considered "corrupting centres" because of the role they played in last year's protests should be shut down, particularly those near schools and universities

Officers are authorised to initiate legal proceedings against women who resist warnings to cover their hair on charges including "promoting corruption"

There is a need for a national database of "motorcycle number plate bank" so those carrying female drivers or passengers with uncovered hair can be identified

Monitoring should be increased of companies whose employees "violate dress codes provocatively and immodestly during entry, exit, and within the premises"

A significant portion of the directives in the leaked documents have already been implemented, including setting up hijab enforcement units inside metro stations and other public spaces; impounding cars that transport unveiled women; denying services to women violating the dress code; and closing cafes.

According to the documents, the police force is required to assign a sufficient number of officers to "identify and warn women who have unveiled themselves", and that in areas where there is sufficient manpower IRGC personnel will help carry out the task.

In the past few months Iranians have noticed the presence of hijab enforcers at metro stations across the capital, Tehran.

The interior ministry and Tehran municipality have described them as "self-motivated forces that do not require a licence for their activities".

But the documents show that their presence is the result of a government decision, which has required planning and the allocation of resources.

The documents also emphasise the importance of "extensively filming and documenting the identity of those involved in unveiling", and indicate that hijab enforcers filming women and girls are affiliated to the security services.

[a-journey-to-true-self]

Unveiling the Puzzle: Understanding Islam in Today's World

[lauralot89]

Angelic Hierarchy

[This is the Christian hierarchy, I was going to start with the Jewish hierarchy and then do Christianity and then do Islam but Judaism has multiple hierarchies and Islam doesn’t seem to rank them]

The First Sphere

Angels in the First Sphere worship and live with God directly and communicate His will to angels closer to humanity.

Seraphim

The highest of all angels, seraphim fly around the throne of God, crying “holy, holy, holy.”  Seraphim have six wings.  They were characterized by Thomas Aquinas by their “burning love for God.”

Seraphim appear in the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Revelation.

Cherubim

Cherubim have two sets of wings and four faces: a human, a lion, an ox, and an eagle.  They serve as a vehicle for God: "He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind." [Psalm 18:10].  Aquinas characterized cherubim by their knowledge. Cherubim are the angels depicted on the ark of the Covenant and a cherub is said to guard the Garden of Eden.

Cherubim appear in the Books of Genesis, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, Psalms, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.

Thrones

Tumblr's favorite angel, Thrones are also called Ophanim or Wheels. Thrones are so named because they guard the throne of God. Thrones are burning interlocked wheels covered with eyes. They never sleep, and are characterized by Rosemary Ellen Guiley as peaceful and submissive.

Thrones appear in the Books of Daniel and Ezekiel and in the letter to the Colossians.

The Second Sphere

Angels in the Second Sphere govern God's creation.

Dominations

Dominations are also called Dominions or Lordships. Dominations regulate the duties of lower angels.

Dominations appear in the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians.

Virtues

Virtues govern celestial bodies and rule over miracles and blessings.

Virtues appear in the letter to the Ephesians.

Powers

Powers, also called Authorities, have dominion over evil forces. They guard the border between Heaven and Earth.

Powers appear in the letter to the Ephesians.

The Third Sphere

Angels in the Third Sphere act as protectors and messengers to humans.

Principalities

Principalities, also called Princedoms and Rulers, oversee groups of people, such as governments or churches. They are the angels charged with fulfilling divine ministries.

Principalities appear in the letter to the Ephesians.

Archangels

Archangels are the guardians of nations and countries, and the people and events therein. There are said to be seven archangels, with Michael being the only one named in the Bible.

In Catholicism, Gabriel and Raphael are also archangels. Uriel was recognized as an archangel by some early Church fathers, but the text in which he appears, the Fourth Book of Esdras, is not a part of the Catholic canon.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, there are seven recognized archangels: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Sealtiel, Jeguidel, and Barachiel. An eighth angel, Jerahmeel, is also sometimes listed as an archangel.

The Coptic Orthodox Church acknowledges seven archangels: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Suriel, Zedekiel, Sarathiel, and Ananiel.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church venerates seven archangels: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Phanuel, Raguel, and Ramiel.

Some Anglican churches name seven archangels: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Chamuel, Jophiel, and Zadkiel.

Archangels are mentioned in 1 Thessolonians and the Book of Jude.

Angels

The lowest angelic order, angels are the most connected to human beings. Guardian angels [Matthew 18:10] refers to this class of angel. These angels serve as messengers to humanity.

[warde0]

Why do women wear Hijab in islam?

Allah swt. created us and we serve him. He also knows what is best for people. Allah swt. He always wants the best for us and that is why he has given us some rules for this life so that we behave correctly and do not do injustice to ourselves or others. To live a contented life. One regulation is the hijab for Muslim women. Allah swt has obliged us to wear the hijab and I and other women are very happy to comply. Because we love Allah swt. we love his deen. we trust in his wisdom and we desire Jannah (Paradise.) and you know what? Allah swt. has given us women in hijabs a very special honor. Allah swt. has chosen clothing for us women that clearly shows everyone that she is a Muslim woman! that is a devotee! This is a very great honor from Allah swt. for us women alhamdulillah! The hijab is an obligation for the Muslim woman. We exclusively define our hijab according to the Quran and Sunnah. for us, for our daughters and for all of humanity. “Oh prophet! tell your wives, your daughters and the wives of the believers to pull something from their shawl over themselves, that is more likely to be recognized and so not to be bothered and Allah swt. is all forgiving and merciful.“

[adropofhumanity]

having an open mind does not mean closing it on the rules and regulations and restrictions put down by islam.

[nsfwhiphop]

Incoming Text for Salma Hayek: @salmahayek and Christina Santini: @santinihoudini and Penélope Cruz: @penelopecruzoficial and Charlize Theron: @charlizeafrica Read this letter:

Subject:“Understanding the Structure and Governance of Muslim Royal Families”

Dear Readers,

I encourage you all to take some time to study the following Wikipedia pages about the Saudi Arabian Royal Family. It is essential to understand the structure, rules, and regulations of a Muslim royal family, especially how they manage the many descendants, handle succession, and follow Islamic laws in their governance. This knowledge will greatly help in understanding how the Somali Royal Family will be managed, as Somalia is a Muslim country, and we must respect and abide by Islamic principles.

Here are the key links for your reference:

House of Saud – click on the blue link

Descendants of Ibn Saud – click on the blue link

Succession to the Saudi Arabian throne – click on the blue link

Sudairi Seven – click on the blue link

King of Saudi Arabia – click on the blue link

Please review these pages carefully, as they will provide valuable insights into how Muslim royal families are traditionally managed and the importance of adhering to Islamic laws.

Best regards, Angelo Crown Prince and Future Sultan Somali Royal Family

P.S.:

Watch this documentary:

House of Saud -- Saudi Arabia Documentary

[augustuspadua]

The Art of Resistance: Iranian Cinema

A Cinema of Contradictions

Iranian cinema is one of the most unique and complex film industries in the world. It is a cinema of contrasts, where beauty and brutality, tradition and modernity, oppression and resistance coexist. Over the decades, Iranian filmmakers have created a rich body of work that has garnered international acclaim, winning numerous awards at prestigious festivals such as Cannes, Venice, and Berlin. However, behind the accolades lies a story of struggle, censorship, and defiance.

The Origins of Iranian Cinema

The history of Iranian cinema dates back to the early 20th century, with the first known Persian film, Abi and Rabi (1930), directed by Ovanes Ohanian, an Armenian-Iranian. However, it was not until the 1950s and 1960s that Iranian cinema began to develop its own identity. This period saw the emergence of films that addressed social issues, often with a critical lens. Filmmakers like Ebrahim Golestan, Forough Farrokhzad, and Darius Mehrjui challenged the conventions of mainstream cinema, exploring themes of alienation, poverty, and the human condition.

Darius Mehrjui’s The Cow (1969) is often cited as a turning point in Iranian cinema. The film, which tells the story of a poor villager’s obsession with his beloved cow, was a stark departure from the escapist melodramas that dominated Iranian screens at the time. The Cow was not only a critical success but also paved the way for a new wave of Iranian filmmakers who sought to use cinema as a tool for social commentary.

The Iranian New Wave

The 1970s saw the rise of the Iranian New Wave, a movement characterized by its focus on realism, symbolism, and the exploration of social and political themes. Filmmakers like Abbas Kiarostami, Bahram Beyzai, and Mohsen Makhmalbaf emerged as leading figures of this movement, creating films that were both artistically innovative and deeply reflective of Iranian society.

Abbas Kiarostami, in particular, became one of the most internationally recognized Iranian directors. His films, such as Where Is the Friend’s House? (1987), Close-Up (1990), and Taste of Cherry (1997), are known for their minimalist style, use of non-professional actors, and philosophical undertones. Kiarostami’s work often blurred the lines between fiction and reality, challenging audiences to reflect on the nature of truth and the human experience.

Mohsen Makhmalbaf, another key figure of the New Wave, is known for his politically charged films that critique the Iranian government and society. His early works, such as The Cyclist (1987) and Time of Love (1991), dealt with issues like poverty, exploitation, and the role of women in Iranian society. Makhmalbaf’s films often faced censorship and were sometimes banned in Iran, but they gained significant recognition abroad.

Despite the creative flourishing of the Iranian New Wave, the 1979 Islamic Revolution brought about significant changes to the country’s film industry. The revolution led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic, and with it came strict censorship laws that sought to align cinema with the new regime’s ideological and moral values.

Cinema Under the Islamic Republic

Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iranian cinema underwent a dramatic transformation. The new regime imposed strict censorship regulations, banning films that were deemed un-Islamic or politically subversive. Filmmakers had to navigate a complex web of rules and restrictions, which dictated everything from how women could be portrayed on screen to what subjects could be explored.

Despite these challenges, Iranian filmmakers found ways to continue creating meaningful and impactful cinema. They developed a unique cinematic language that relied on symbolism, allegory, and metaphor to convey messages that could not be expressed directly. This period saw the emergence of films that subtly critiqued the government and highlighted the struggles of ordinary Iranians, often through the lens of children or marginalized individuals.

One of the most iconic films from this era is The White Balloon (1995) by Jafar Panahi, a former assistant to Abbas Kiarostami. The film, which tells the story of a young girl’s quest to buy a goldfish for the Iranian New Year, was praised for its simplicity and depth. Panahi’s work often explores the lives of ordinary people, particularly women and children, and subtly critiques the social and political realities of life in Iran.

Panahi himself became a symbol of resistance when he was arrested in 2010 for his outspoken criticism of the Iranian government. Despite being banned from making films, he continued to create powerful works in secret, including This Is Not a Film (2011), which was smuggled out of Iran on a USB drive hidden inside a cake and screened at the Cannes Film Festival.

The agonies faced by Iranian filmmakers are multifaceted. Censorship is perhaps the most obvious challenge, as directors must constantly navigate a labyrinth of regulations that restrict their creative freedom. The government’s control over cinema extends beyond content; it also includes the distribution and exhibition of films. Many Iranian films are banned from being shown in their home country, and filmmakers often face the risk of arrest, harassment, or exile for their work.

For example, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, who was once imprisoned for his political activism before the revolution, eventually left Iran due to the increasing pressures on his artistic freedom. He continued to make films abroad, exploring themes of exile, identity, and the Iranian diaspora. His daughter, Samira Makhmalbaf, also became a prominent filmmaker, known for her films The Apple (1998) and Blackboards (2000), which deal with issues of gender and education in Iran.

Another filmmaker who has faced significant challenges is Asghar Farhadi, whose films A Separation (2011) and The Salesman (2016) both won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Farhadi’s work is known for its complex characters and moral dilemmas, often set against the backdrop of contemporary Iranian society. Despite his international success, Farhadi has faced scrutiny and criticism from Iranian authorities, and his films have sometimes been censored or banned in Iran.

Iranian actors also experience their own set of struggles. Actresses, in particular, face stringent regulations regarding how they can appear on screen. Women are required to wear the hijab in all public scenes, even in situations where it would not be culturally or contextually appropriate. This has led to creative challenges in storytelling, as filmmakers must find ways to depict relationships and emotions within these constraints.

Despite these restrictions, Iranian actors have delivered powerful performances that have resonated with audiences around the world. Leila Hatami, who starred in A Separation, is one of Iran’s most acclaimed actresses, known for her ability to convey deep emotional complexity through subtle, nuanced performances. Her work has earned her international recognition, but she, like many of her peers, must constantly balance her artistic ambitions with the realities of working under a repressive regime.

Resilience and Legacy

Despite the significant challenges they face, Iranian filmmakers and actors have shown remarkable resilience. Their ability to create profound, thought-provoking films within the constraints of censorship and repression is a testament to their creativity and determination. Iranian cinema continues to be a powerful voice for social justice, human rights, and artistic freedom.

One of the most significant contributions of Iranian cinema is its ability to humanize the people of Iran, offering a counter-narrative to the often negative and simplistic portrayals found in Western media. Through their films, Iranian directors and actors have shown the world the richness and complexity of Iranian culture, as well as the struggles and hopes of its people.

The legacy of Iranian cinema is also evident in its influence on global filmmaking. The minimalist style, focus on realism, and use of symbolism that characterize much of Iranian cinema have inspired filmmakers around the world. Directors like Abbas Kiarostami and Asghar Farhadi have become influential figures in international cinema, with their work studied and admired by filmmakers and critics alike.

As Iran continues to navigate its political and social challenges, its filmmakers remain committed to telling stories that reflect the realities of their society. They continue to push the boundaries of what is possible, finding new ways to express themselves and connect with audiences, both at home and abroad.

The future of Iranian cinema is uncertain, but one thing is clear: the spirit of resistance that has defined it for decades is still very much alive. Iranian filmmakers and actors continue to face significant obstacles, but they also continue to create some of the most compelling and thought-provoking cinema in the world.

As new generations of filmmakers emerge, they bring with them fresh perspectives and new ways of navigating the challenges of working in a repressive environment. The global recognition of Iranian cinema is a testament to the power of art to transcend borders, challenge oppression, and inspire change.

In the face of adversity, Iranian cinema remains a beacon of artistic excellence, resilience, and hope. It is a reminder that even in the darkest of times, the human spirit can find ways to create beauty, tell stories, and speak truth to power.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Armin Navabi

Published: Feb 6, 2023

A protest becomes a revolution when the protesters have hope, determination, and unity. This is why sowing division is a tried and true tactic used by unpopular leaders the world over to cling to power. This has been the Iranian regime’s recipe for survival for the past four decades. They turn different groups against each other by invoking ancient hatred and historical tensions. They do not invent the hate, but they inflame and weaponize it, pitting men against women with religion, ethnicities against each other using the fear of separatist movements, and religious people against secularists with warnings of degeneracy and depravity.

But now everything has changed. A 22-year-old woman's brutal death at the hands of Iran's morality police has laid waste to 40 years of efforts to divide and conquer. The recent protests — or revolution, as many Iranians insist — began after Mahsa Amini died in police custody after being arrested for her "improper" hijab (head covering) while visiting Tehran from the Kurdistan Province in Iran. As news spread and the people of Iran watched in horror, the same thought crossed their minds: “That could be my daughter.” “That could be my sister.” Against all odds, in a country where division over religion, ethnicity, and gender has been common, many Iranians have put aside their differences and are now united in one goal. Mahsa Amini's murder has brought people from all walks of life into the streets across Iran, demanding the end not merely of the morality police, but of the regime itself. Some loose strands of hair were enough to get Amini killed. They were also enough to bind a divided nation together in solidarity.

I'm not in the mood to talk about the Nobel Prize. https://t.co/8aq9SDhFRT

Women young and old are tearing off and burning their hijabs in the streets in protest against the Islamic regime. Even those unable to walk are joining the protests, as demonstrated by this woman in a wheelchair chanting, "Don't be afraid, don't be afraid, we are together."

For years, the Islamic Republic has told the people that Iran will be fractured and ultimately torn apart by Arab, Turkish, Baluch, and mainly Kurdish separatist groups if the regime falls. Leveraging Iranians' strong desire to protect their borders, the regime scares people into support by fearmongering about the potential success of Kurdish separatist groups. You may have some disagreements with us, but we are the only thing standing in the way of anarchy. But the spell of such propaganda seems to have broken. Non-Kurdish protesters across Iran now chant in support of Kurdish Iranians, including "Woman, Life, Freedom", a phrase which is Kurdish in origin. This slogan reflects the spirit of the protests and has captured the attention of people worldwide. The fact that this Kurdish chant is shouted across Iran’s ethnic groups highlights the unity among protesters.

The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, which ushered in the current theocratic regime, also divided people along religious lines. In my childhood, I was introduced to the dichotomy: my friends and family were more liberal-minded and anti-regime, while the very religious pro-regime schools and media attempted to brainwash me. Being religious always seemed to go hand in hand with being pro-regime, and yet, more and more, the devout have been joining the anti-regime ranks for the past few years. These demonstrations have exposed this trend. Among those who have been arrested are some of the most pious, including women who wear the chador (a type of hijab that very religious women wear in Iran). Standing shoulder to shoulder with them are religious men.

pic.twitter.com/IXIMuEEy6k

Despite all the laws and regulations that segregate and set them against each other, the men and women of Iran have come together to show the regime that a desire for freedom transcends gender and tradition. We have seen religious men appeal to their fellows by invoking the injustice inflicted on Imam Hussain, the martyred grandson of the Prophet Muhammad revered by Shia Muslims, imploring them to rise and stand against the injustice done to Mahsa. One man shouted that any man who doesn't stand up today is the same as those who betrayed Imam Hussain, and they will not be able to look him in the eyes in the afterlife. Along the same lines, a former TV presenter for the regime reminded people of the upcoming anniversary of the Prophet Muhammad's demise, showing respect for the prophet and demonstrating his religious sentiments, but then warning protesters to be on guard for false flag operations which might take the form of government agents burning the Quran and pulling chadors from women while pretending to be anti-regime protesters. His warning is an obvious indication that he supports the protesters, but he makes it even more explicit when he includes himself among them by saying, "We are fighting for freedom."

One area of concern is over LGBT issues. Contrary to the wishes of the regime, more and more Iranian LGBT activist groups have been springing up in recent years. Still, religious and traditional Iranians lag far behind on LGBT rights, and it remains a polarizing and unpopular issue. In an attempt to build the broadest possible coalition against the regime, some supporters are asking LGBT members to put their LGBT activism on the back burner, including requests that people not protest with rainbow flags [mainly in solidarity protests outside of Iran] and to try to blend in with others so that the regime can't use them to separate religious and traditional protesters from their ranks. The process of political sausage-making is rarely pretty, though it stands to reason that, should the regime fall, a more secular and democratic government would invariably be better for LGBT Iranians.

زیبایی ببینید: مردها شعار میدن زن، زندگی، آزادی زنان جواب میدن مرد، میهن، آبادی. امروز دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز#مهسا_امینی pic.twitter.com/1tdp3Yqm7Q

The central theme of the uprising has been putting aside differences and uniting against the regime. In a moment that perfectly captures the message of unity, you can hear men chant “Woman, Life, Freedom” and the women respond “Man, Nation, Prosperity.” No matter the class, religion, ethnicity, or gender, Iranians are standing together. It's your turn to stand with them. Use the English and Persian hashtags, #MahsaAmini and #مهسا_امینی to bring attention to what's happening in Iran. Lend your voice to the chorus to cast down repressive theocracy. Today, we are all Mahsa.

==

Funny how people who are actually oppressed aren't competing against each other for oppression points.

The universality and unanimity of this revolution might be one of the most remarkable things of all. Feminists are being asked to put away the man-hate slogans, LGBT people are being asked to put away the rainbow flags, because those will factionalize the movement, put men and more conservative religious types off-side, and create opportunities for the regime to divide and conquer. And they are. Because those are fights for another day. It's Iran, together, against the regime.

"Be with the people, one hand and one form with the rest."

Iran is a country that will be free.

Remember the Women's March in the US in 2017? Its most memorable symbol was a woman in a hijab, it featured a pro-Sharia Islamist among its most vocal representatives, and it descended into endless episodes of Intersectional madness, such as the pussyhat fiasco, which resulted in a furore, an apology and the deletion of the knitting pattern when feminists and Gender Studies professors insisted it wasn't sufficiently inclusive to women with penises. And also racism. Somehow. 🤡 When you're privileged and free, and your oppression is imaginary, the fight to the bottom is a mad scramble.