Middle Nation Content Talks: White Supremacy's Blame Game

So white supremacists have really been trying to somehow evade accountability. Alright? It's something that is apparent to all of us here listening. Probably shake this back one minute. I'll just try to invite.

So we'll be trying to somehow understand this phenomenon. Right? We'll try to why is there this psychological need to avoid any type of accountability and repentance? Right? What what are the factors affecting that stance?

Why are they in that position? Why do they keep resorting to these tactics? Right? Why do they even like, it's not about just the present, but they try to reshape, rewrite history, right, to absolve themselves from the injustices that they committed themselves. Okay?

So we'll try to somehow expose different contradictions of these narratives, different approaches that we should inshallah as Ummad and Wasatul, as a middle nation, that we should try to, you know, uphold on some stance, some approach. We will look at how even Zionism, okay, is sort of this we can see it nowadays as being this instrument of blame shifting. Right? Where it's the Jews controlling the policy. It's not us.

It's always someone else. Right? With specifically talking about, you know, the genocide in Gaza. You can see the westerners are trying to somehow shift the attention elsewhere. Alright?

And we know who whose hands are stained with what. Alright? We have already discussed the Jewish experience historically and discussed the role of Israel and the Zionism and its roots and everything regarding that in one of the content that we had. It was called being anti Jewish just means you're Westerner. So in case you're interested about that, it is on X.

And I think it was even uploaded on YouTube, so feel free to look at that. Okay? And today, Insha'Allah, relevant will be the different psychological aspects that a typical westerner might be in, you know, because and it's not just psychological for us Muslims. We understand that it's connected very much and even, you know, bigger emphasis is put on the spiritual aspect of it. Right?

Of the interconnectedness between these things. So having this understanding that we do, we see the connectedness between this outer and inner reality. Right? So we might see the refusal to repent, the refusal to accept accountability as sort of an interstate and engaging in this systemic denial as an art outward reality that we see in real life. Right?

And this would and then, hopefully, inshallah, will lead us to some understanding that really intellectual and moral vigilance is of utmost importance. Right? We really need to maintain integrity in our discourse. We need to protect it from infiltration by benefit actors. And this is what they really started even the contemplation of the video because as we will see, Stetshay mentions specifically the aspect of one, you know, white supremacist being coming on a space and trying to somehow derail the conversation, trying to instill confusion in these listeners.

So we will see methods how we can protect and how this is really an intentional tactic of disruption rather than just some genuine seeking truth, seeking answers, and so on. Right? So by analyzing all of these interconnected teams, inshallah, we'll try to highlight or illuminate pathways towards reclaiming some historical honesty and especially having this moral clarity that it's all about, right, which is in line inshallah with the Middle Nation approach. So without further ado, mister Shahid is here. Everything is working inshallah.

So I'll play the first part of the video that we'll be discussing. I'll inshallah ask some questions regarding it. We will discuss it. And after we have, you know, depleted all that can be depleted, inshallah, we'll move on to the next part of it. K?

So enjoy listening to this if you haven't listened if you haven't heard it yet.

I was looking into a space on x today or or yesterday rather. I know there was this very obnoxious sort of white supremacist on there, kind of Charlie Kirk wannabe, you know, had the same demeanor, same typical sort of aggressive style. You know? You know, they use aggression tactically to flood your limbic system. It so your prefrontal cortex goes offline and your amygdala takes over.

You should pay attention to that. Blood flow shifts from the reasoning centers of your brain to the motor cortex, you know, your working memory buffer, the space where you in your brain, the brain the space where you juggle facts, your your body chains, rhetorical structure, and so on, that shrinks. So you forget your data. You stumble over your words, and you get flustered. They interrupt you.

They cut you off. They raise their voice and so on. And it isn't just because they are rude and obnoxious and they have no manners. It's not just because of that. It's because they're wrong.

And they know that in any calm, reasonable discussion, this will become blatantly obvious. So this is the approach they take. You know? They always claim to be people who love facts and who who love logic. You know, facts don't give much and so on, but their whole style is tactically intended to sabotage the discussion of facts and logic.

Because always, always, they cannot actually contend with facts and logic. You know? They pretend that they want that kind of a discussion, but they absolutely actually want to derail reasoning. And they want they want you to be emotional. You should take note of that.

This is a patented western approach. This is how they do. Always aggressive. Always confrontational. Always trying to buy Coke or buy Coke, trying to undermine actual reasoned, calm, intellectual discussion while always claiming that they're all about rationality.

This is the western microcosm.

Okay. So this was the first part of what we will be discussing inshallah. So now coming on to the questions that are related to this. Okay? So have you noticed how quickly aggression can overwhelm thoughtful responses disrupting our ability to clearly express logic?

Alright? And this was something that was highlighted. And, you know, there's so

much to unpack, inshallah. We'll go into it,

but yeah. Sorry. My cat is screaming here. One minute. Come here.

Okay. Your cat is trying to flutter our limbic system.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He's trying to disrupt the conversation. It's talking about a lot, cat.

Okay. So what happens to dialogue when, you know, participants really intentionally try to sabotage reasoning rather than genuinely exchange ideas? Right? Is it just rudeness on their part, or is it really a conscious effort to derail rational discussion altogether? K?

This is something really that needs to be understood, something that you need to try to you know, try to notice it when someone is debating with you. What are what is their aim? Right? Like, someone claims that they're interested about the facts, but consistently resort to emotional manipulation. Right?

How are they really committed to honesty in that case if this is how they approach discussion or you know? Also, how strong is their position? You know? Are their aggressive tactics somehow masking insecurities about their own beliefs? Right?

And most importantly for us, right, you know, how can we protect inshallah our conversations from this emotional hijacking? Right? And, again, even more importantly, without responding in kind. Right? Not being in the same manner, not approaching it aggressively, not approaching it by emotional manipulation.

In this way, we, you know, might block somehow sincere inquiry. Right? Can true rationality coexist with aggression, or do these tactics eliminate meaningful dialogue? The floor is yours, my dear speakers. Feel free, anyone who wants to start it, please.

I'll be happy to listen.

Everybody once again. So it's this topic that we're speaking about is something that you see all the time. And like Ravashi mentioned in the video, you know, it happens during lives. Last night, I was on a live, and the exact same thing happens all the time. You can see it's a tactic that they play out, whether it is sort of a question that they're to question you on your beliefs seemingly in a very nice way, but you can sense the underhandedness with that question.

Or they just blatantly show their aggression. And the moment you take them on calmly by responding to what they say, they drop and they're gone. They don't even listen to you. So it is really just to distract you. And, you know, a lot of the times when you if if if somebody doesn't take control, that is where the issue persists because sometimes you can stick on that same topic.

That person is no longer in the talk. And then you find that the rest of the panel is still discussing the same thing off topic. So it is important that practically we recognize what it is, not feed into and and and, you know, and and and react the way that they want us to react and just move on and stick to the topic. So, I mean, block, mute, all those things are there for a reason. A lot of the times, there's no need to engage with these people.

They have no intention of engaging really with you. They have no intention of changing their perception in the first place. They're there because they want to just cause the distraction.

I would I would add to this that that this is a really fundamental difference between Islamic discussions truly Islamic discussions between Muslims, and generally speaking, the the the sort of discourse or or debate culture that you have in the West, which is the the fact of adab, which is usually translated as manners or good manners. And for for Muslims, the the very fact that we that we approach all discussions under the governance of adab, under the governance of manners, already demonstrates that we are much more serious in the discussion of ideas because we don't accept for it to be aggressive. We don't accept it for for it to be insulting. It's Adam isn't it it's it's more than etiquette. It's more than just politeness.

Like I say, it's it's really the governance. It's what governs conversation. It's what governs discussion that we try to remain calm and respectful when we talk because it's not a personal fight. It's not a clash. It's a discussion, and discussion should always be respectful because we want to engage that part of the mind that is rational, that that deals with reason, that deals with logic, that deals with facts and evidence and so forth.

Whereas what you what you always find and it's and and it's it's almost people have been programmed into thinking that this is how discussions are supposed to be because that's the way it is carried out in the mainstream media. Just shouting over each other, interrupting each other, basically just throwing punches instead of discussing ideas, just trying to make the other side look bad, trying to make the other person in the discussion look bad as a way of winning your side and trying to you know, as as I said in that talk, you're trying to frustrate them. You're trying to fluster them. You're trying to make them emotional so that they cannot engage rationally. So in my opinion, yes, it is absolutely just a tactic for avoiding reasonable rational discussion.

You'll never see people you know, and it's it's always it's always it always has to do with politics, religion, or any sort of moral issue. You don't see scientists shouting at each other. You don't see doctors shouting at each other, physicists shouting at each other when they're talking about things. So this is when when when they they really are trying to make you disengage those parts of your mind, whether you are the other person in the conversation or you're the viewer. You're the audience.

They really want everyone to disengage the the reasoning parts of their brain and avoid as much as possible any sort of irrational discussion. And this is, as I say, this is an aspect of it's a feature of Islamic discussion, which is that we adhere to. We adhere to a a certain governance structure for how we're supposed to conduct ourselves in our especially public conversations or public discussions specifically so that we can preserve, the the functioning of those rational reasoning parts of the brain. And this this is something very unique. And I as as I said at the beginning, it shows to me that, generally speaking, Muslims are much more serious about having a rational issue rational discussions, reasonable discussions, and we don't approach moral issues or issues of politics or issues of religion any differently than we approach discussions about science or medicine or anything else or mathematics, what have you.

Everyone in my?

So

I won't take much time. I'm just in response to the question regarding what makes them do that is that this like, the sense of threatening the stat the status quo. So if you, for example, reflect upon the seerah, there's there's this incident where someone comes to to and he goes I think I'm not sure if it was or He was one of he one of the two men. So he went to the prophet and he he he he said to him words that were not were not polite. He told him what it what in essence was that you are you are what what you are doing is that you are shaming your tribe, your and you are making us fight one another, and you are essentially the black sheep of Quraysh.

And so if you, yeah, listen closely, these were not the kind of words one would want to hear. Right? And the prophet had heard this a lot and a lot before, but what was was interesting in this incident is that the prophet didn't say words addressing any of the of the of the accusations and any of the the the the the grievances that were mentioned by this man. He remained silent. He remained calm until the man had finished.

And he he asked him a question, a one word question. He said, are you done? It's not a one word question. It in Arabic, was a one word question, But in English, he was he he what it translates to be, are you done? And the man, because he wasn't want he wasn't expect expecting that kind of response, he was he was taken aback a bit.

And he was like, yes. I'm done. And so the prophet he recited the Quran, and he recited some ayahs which ended in a very strong ayahs that in a very strong ayah that those who, like, those who are, you know, the disbelievers, within their disbelief, they will face, you know, terrible terrible punishment. And that was it. He didn't he didn't comment.

He didn't say anything else. But he was very calm in his demure. And so this man, he immediately left the discussion. He didn't try to discuss what was happening, what was being said. He didn't try to address the core issue, the crux of the of the Dawah with the prophet Instead, he left.

And then he went on to to the to the to the rest of Qurashi's elders, and he said that this this words of Allah these are not words of human beings. These are words of Allah Meaning that he when he reflected upon what he had heard without interference, you know, just the the the the journey from the prophet to to the place where Quraysh were talking, he reflected upon what he had heard, and he he sensed that this was not something that you can debate with. No. This was something more. This was the truth.

And so upon going to our arriving at Quraysh, he said that these these were words of Allah It is right, however, that he afterwards, you know, he was again, he reverted to the ways of Quraysh, and he he disbelieved. But it was important that he gave this instance of reflection because the the manner in which the prophet recited the Quran was very calm and very serious. And he didn't address, you know, he didn't get baited into the syntax. He was addressing the the the the crux of the problem. So I think that if you the way you deliver your message and addressing the the points head on immediately disarms your opponent.

And, Yanny, like like we said like sister Nisa said, you don't, Yanny, stay on topic. Don't stray. And the other thing is that they want they they feel threatened. Those, Yanny, who don't want the truth to be told, they feel threatened because it threatens the the the status quo. I'm sorry if the thoughts are incoherent.

I'm just thinking of this incident and how close it resembles to the ideas being discussed. Thank you.

No. Thank you very much for this because it's actually I've you know, it is at the very core of the thing because, like, when you stand for the hook, for the truth, you speak the truth, you don't really need to resort to these kind of tactics. Like, doing these tactics or, you know, behaving in that manner or approaching discussion in that manner already tells you all you need to know about that given person and his conviction and what he's stating and how much is he convinced about what he's stating. Right? Like, even, like, when we did last week, you know, with this for the.

Right? You they were and so on. They went to the negotiations to try to convince about stopping or, you know, not entering. But once they saw that really, you know, the truth is there, like, what can you do?

You know?

They went back and said, so just remember there was a similar instance where, you know, someone is sent to the prophet to convince him about stopping, about, you know, doing something that they don't want him to do. And in the end, they coming themselves back and saying, you know, it's like arguing on behalf of the prophet Right? So very interesting. So thank you for bringing it up. I saw the hand raised by brother Nabil.

So please feel free to continue or add if you want to. If you don't want anyone else.

Yeah.

First time. So, basically, I wanted to add two things to the discussion. It's in relation to the nature of the western discourse, I would say. So the first thing I would like to say is the extreme hyper skepticism that is usually, I think, you find in western discourse. So you find a lot of people just being, sort of, skeptical for sake sake of being on the other side of the argument.

So I'll give an example with the discussion whereby a person was trying to say the verse in the Quran in that says those who build I'm paraphrasing here. Sorry. The people who build who take idols as their gods are like people like the spider which builds his home from its web and is the weakest of houses. So that person was trying to refute that verse using the fact that he was trying to say spider web is a strong material, but the verse wasn't talking about the material itself. It was talking about how the the house of the spider is weak, and everybody knows the house of the spider is weak.

But just so so he could be on side of, like, the opposing side, he picked that as a, I think, will I say, as a kind of, like, gotcha moment and try to refute it. It's something to just sit down and reflect. Then the second thing I would like to say is in terms of, like, even those who appear to be coming to our discourse, like like your I think you also your podcasters and the rest, They usually are deceptive in the sense that they'll tell a story, maybe story will make be made up of, like, 10% of truth and they'll add up a lot of lies. It's kind of mimicking the, what I say, the djinn in the when they tell magicians about maybe prophecies and the rest, they'll they'll tell you a bit of truth and they'll mix it like so you a similar discussion happened, I think, yesterday on a thread on Twitter where a person was trying to America's downfall. And he started out with, like, how America Jews helped America in civil war.

That actually happened. But the next thing he did was finances, where the media finances were actually the French and the Spaniards. So there's that. So it's kind of typical of Western discourse to not be on the truth. Maybe for the sake of just being skeptical.

I can't necessarily say I know the reason why. This field has been nurtured in the way they think. That's what I would say.

Yeah. This skepticism that, you know, the more skeptical you are, the more you must be correct or the smarter you are. Like, there is this approach that the more you ask, the you know, some enlightenment will come, I guess. SubhanAllah. You know?

And you you can see, like, you know, you get this, like, the repeaters and, you know, like, suddenly, like, what is you? What is I? You know? Like, what are you talking about? You know?

Why why do you need to question everything? Just, you know, be normal person. Right? Try to stand for what's right then. Yeah.

Please, brother. Tell me. Sorry. Your hand must be hurting from,

you know,

I think you tried Spanish.

I really appreciate all the points shared on just these tactics of disruption and the really what can only be described as intellectual sabotage that is intrinsic to Western supremacy's weaponization of of aggression within dialogue. You know, as was noted, they flood the limbic system. They force the prefrontal cortex to go offline, and that sabotages the working memory buffer where you juggle facts, your logical chains of of deductive reasoning, your rhetorical structures, it all gets compromised. But the the point of discourse in the West is not discourse. It is in fact disruption.

It is in fact intellectual sabotage. And that is why people are, in more cases, they're not confused, skeptical, and and really all over the place and and never really have any solid footing in in any given moral or ethical arena. And as we continue to explore these points, that's what makes the blame game really just a way of life for them. It it reflects the the the purpose of their discourse isn't really to contend with facts because they have no facts to stand upon. It is, in fact, too overwhelming.

It is, in fact, too disrupt to dominate, and that is intrinsic to Western culture. Truth is not sought through humility. Its might makes right. And if not white, then it is not right. It's through confrontation.

Whoever's louder, whoever's more abrasive, whoever's more aggressive, whoever has the guns, whoever has the sword, whoever has the chains in their hand, whoever holds the whip, that's who's right. And that anger tactic exposes insecurity. Because when your logic cannot stand up to scrutiny, then you replace it with intimidation. You replace it with subjugation. You replace it with oppression.

And

Allah discusses this very simple reality in the Quran. For example, in Surat I Kaf, the eighteenth chapter of the Quran, the fifth fifty fourth verse, the cave. Allah tells us that he has, in fact, given us a diverse form of examples and similitude in the Quran, analogies, metaphors

that we

can all utilize in order to understand, to grow. But it requires a certain amount of of humility to do that. But mankind, humanity has an inclination towards being argumentative, towards that sort of disruptive discourse, towards pointing out the flaws, pointing out, oh, this this so called intellectual skepticism. And that endless disputation is a weakness of the human enough. It's not a strength.

But without faith, you cannot actualize what it means to address that deficiency within human nature as a means of using humility to actually grow, to actually learn, which is, you know, as Arshak Shahid had mentioned earlier, like, we we have a certain approach to this course to learning that requires humility. In Surativ Furkan chapter 25 verse number 63, when describing the servants of the most merciful, that when we hear people who are ignorant addressing us, we're supposed to respond with peace. The prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him tells us, Can you all hear me okay?

I

won't give you on but let me just get to the prophet Muhammad tells us that he a house is guaranteed for us in heaven, for the one who abandons arguing even when right. You know? The prophet Muhammad that's a hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud and the hadith in in in Bukhari and Muslim. The most hated of people in the sight of Allah is the one who's the fiercest in disputation. So now look at how their argumentation is for domination, how the way they approach discourse in that disruption, that intellectual sabotage, actually is a reflection of God almighty's wrath over them.

Stepping back from fruitless confrontation for us is actually rewarded. Like, sister Nisa mentioned, that's what the block button is for. You know? That's that's what those things exist for. And he said, I never debated anyone hoping to prevail.

My only hope was that the truth would emerge, whether on his tongue or mine. But when truth is not your priority, and that's what Imam al Bayhafi mentioned in his biography of Imam Shafi. When when truth is not your goal and you don't see truth as rewarding but being right as the goal, then true adept of debate of of debate, which is supposed to service the truth and not service itself, gets lost in their anger, in their desire for dominance, and really a testament to divine humiliation over them that makes itself manifest as confessions of weakness. And those Western fallacies of ad hominem, attack the person, not the argument, of bullying, that appeal to emotion, trying to provoke that anger to bypass your rational faculties, your god given intellect, that gish gallop of drown the truth in noise, that performative rationalism of claim to stand for facts while all you're doing is really just weaponizing senseless emotions, that epistemic injustice of denying your opponent even the space to reason. In Western public life, whether you're talking about talk shows, political debate, sports shows, that anger has been commodified and commercialized, and the applause goes to the loudest, not the most truthful.

In this culture of rage, it masks a fragile self image where confidence is simulated through aggression because the argument cannot itself withstand any intellectual scrutiny. So, of course, they have to disrupt it. So that was just some reflections I have from that section. Forgive me for speaking too long, Gaffney.

No. Beautiful. Beautiful. And, like, when you were speaking about the, like, different opinions on debates and so on, and I think that's one of the reasons also why some of our scholars, you know, were against and so on because it's all nonstop debating and talking and going into areas like, you know, stick to stick to what's firm. Right?

Stick to what's true. Exactly. So thank you very much. Sister Samirat, please. I saw you wanted to mention something.

Thank you so much. Everyone mentioned almost all the points. I just wanted to add one thing that I recently observed was that when they argue as well to disprove whatever it is because at the end of the day, it's kind of a zero sum game when they argue or when they debate. They try to go to the edgy, you know, to the edge, to the subjects that are when there is a general subject that where the norm ninety nine percent of individuals will experience, they just go through that 1% exceptions or special cases, and they try to focus on them as if they are the norm or to make it to make it seem that they are seeing something that is brilliant. Or because they mentioned something exceptional, it brings them, you know, to this note.

They'll give you they'll give you this notion that they are, well, they are smart. Are right. There's this exception. So the general rule must be negated. But that's as but there is any exception.

It's just what? One in a million, one in a billion. So, yes, it's good to know that, to acknowledge that, but that's not the norm. So we they give priority basically to those edgy special cases instead of the general and norm. Because usually, the general and the norm is known to everyone in a small topic.

So they they have to make it, you know, you know, it has to be special case for people to be interested in, and so they focus on those exceptional cases. I just want to add that.

Yeah. And even, like, they have been rewired to go with this approach even in the discussions. Right? So you are discussing something, and suddenly they will try to stick to the one percent and highlight it and emphasize it, right, rather than looking at the general reality or how it really is. Right?

They will just take some exception and focus or try to stir the discussion just around that specific point when it's not even that important to the general discussion. Right? But just for the sake of inflating something or trying to derail again, you know, all of these topics that were discussed, they will do this as well. Right? Then something that I I'm sure, you know, everyone has noticed.

I I would just say Yes, please.

Yeah. I I would just say that everyone should be you know, anyone who does any especially here on on on x or any social media, you'll find this always in your comment section. Or if you do spaces or what have you, you will encounter exactly what we're talking about from if if you're trying to be serious, you will always encounter people who are going to try to derail the conversation, try to derail the discussion, try to throw you off by being aggressive, by being insulting, and by bringing up sort of fringe points or marginal points or or misdirections of one sort or another. Because, again, this is just how Western discourse always goes. And you should, for your own for your own self, understand that these are unserious people.

These are deeply unserious people, and they are, in fact, disrespecting themselves, and they are they are their culture, their so called civilization has deprived them of being able to even respect themselves enough to to engage in discussions, engage in discourse in a mature, intelligent, rational, reasonable, intellectual manner. And that's a shame for them. That's a pity for them. But you don't have to be dragged down and understand that you don't have to respond to, you know, ridiculous comments, insulting comments, angry, aggressive comments, provocative comments that are trying to provoke you and trying to misdirect and trying to mislead and trying to derail a conversation, you don't have to respond to that at all because you're not you're not losing anyone, and you're not losing your point. You're not losing your focus.

You're not losing your argument when someone is dealing with you in an unserious way because this isn't someone who, anyway, is going to be convinced by whatever you're saying. They're there to try to prevent you from convincing others. And if you let them drag you down, then they will have succeeded because now you're no longer focusing on the point that you're there to make. You're no you're no longer able to engage in the topic in a serious way. And all they're all they're trying to do is to derail any sort of serious conversation, any any serious discussion.

But you're not losing anything. You're not losing anyone when you do not respond to these types of people, to these types of comments, to these types of arguments, and and what have you. And any any audience that you're trying to convince, if those are people who are convinced by these types of tactics and this type of approach, then you were never gonna win those people over anyway because they are also unserious people. So there's nothing wrong with focusing your attention upon exclusively upon serious people who are who are interested in engaging in a topic, engaging in a discussion in a mature, intelligent manner. You you should be willing to I mean, I know that that the whole nature of social media is supposed to be you wanna try to get the widest demographic possible.

You wanna get as many clicks and views and likes and shares and all of that quantity over quality. But if you are a serious person now maybe you're just a a shill. Maybe you're just a grifter, and you're just trying to make a buck on social media and what have you, so you don't really care. So already you're an unserious person, and you can have the unserious audience. But if you're a serious person discussing serious issues, issues of some import, then you should never lower your standards with regards to the way you engage in those topics and the way you manage and, as I say, govern your conversations, your public conversations, your public discussions.

You should always maintain the highest standards possible, the highest integrity possible in your conversations, in your discussions. And if you lose anyone in that discipline in that disciplined approach, if you lose anyone, you didn't really lose them because you were never gonna get them anyway.

Wow. A 100%. Exactly. As you were mentioning, you know, you are not holding losing anything or anyone. I would even add that you are actually winning, you know, with respect to safeguarding your intellectual capacity, your moral capacity, your moral clarity.

Right? So, like, not engaging with that is your benefit. Right? It's not even, like, zero sum game or something. Right?

Yeah. So Right? Like, depart in a beautiful manner. Mhmm. Let it be.

You know? Do not add fuel. Do not that's really what they want from you. Right? Like, when someone is approaching you aggressively, it's like those people who always wanna spark a fight and so on.

Right? Like, you can have it physically, you can have it verbally. It's still the same approach. Right? They just wanna see someone derailed.

They wanna see someone triggered. Right? They wanna trigger you. That's their basically approach. I I think everyone here is familiar with the word triggered, right, which means, you know, to somehow stir up something in you so that they win over you in some manner.

Alright. So sorry, brother Shahid. I saw you on mute.

So No. Please. No. That's okay. I was just gonna say, it's been mentioned here by a few of the speakers, some examples from the, some examples from our scholars of the past, like Imam Shayf Ali or Bayhaki or so on.

And we hear these stories a lot, especially maybe Abu Hanifa, Imam Ahmed, and so forth. We hear about how they engaged with people who tried to attack them, but we never hear the names of these people who attacked them. They're completely forgotten to history because these are unserious people. We hear about we know imam Shafi'i. We know imam Ahmed.

We know imam Behakti and so forth. We know all of them. We don't know any of the names of these foolish critics that attacked them. They're forgotten to history. These are people who have chosen to be irrelevant.

They've they've they've chosen to be irrelevant because they they refuse to engage seriously in in any sort of engagement with ideas and any engagement with with public discussion.

Yes. 100% cooking. Just sorry for this short interruption. I see some people are requesting the microphone. I just want to inform the listeners that we really have a structured, you know, a different approach than regular spaces.

So it has been always, you know, mentioned, but I will mention it inshallah again. There is a group, brigades, middle nation brigades. You are invited inshallah to join that specific group when we see that you're engaging somehow in a manner that is appropriate, in a way that is in line with the Middle Nation approach, you get recruited, inshallah, to the brigades, and then you are invited to the Continental to speak if you are familiar with the specific video, with the topics discussed in the video, and so on. Right? It's not really about trying to everyone speak what they think about a specific topic, but it's really trying to educate, trying to go deep into a specific video of Ustasa, trying to explain the different themes, trying to uncover.

You know, because really, like, even that part, if you saw, so I don't know, like, was, you know, two minutes and we are speaking about it for roughly fifty minutes. Right? Forty minutes. So just please, you know, there we value the time of the listeners. We value the time of the speakers.

So it has to be structured. Right? We're not gonna waste anyone's time. So please understand that if I do not accept your mic, it's nothing against you specifically. It's just the approach that has been chosen for this content talk in general.

Okay? So and hopefully, we can continue that. Okay. So now we will go into part two, which will be this historical revisionism and how it's related to the point shifting approach to this what we spoke about. So

So, anyway, these white supremacists were sort of rattling off all the standard talking points that he got from some, you know, KKK subreddit or or or what have you. The Jews were disproportionately responsible for American slavery, saying that the Jews owned the slave ships. The Jews financed the trade. The Jews owned most of the slaves and so on. Imagine saying that.

You must think we're really stupid. Like, Alabama and Mississippi are renowned for their thriving Jewish populations. You know? Because, yeah, of course, Jews in America are you know, have always been associated with agriculture. Sure.

I mean, it's goofy. It's goofy on the face of it. But, okay, let's address it. Let's actually address it. I mean, someone tweeted in in association with that space.

A revisionist history figure that said that only two percent of Americans have their own slaves. You know? We were actually misunderstood how how how truly upright and humane the American South really was. We've all misunderstood that. Well, look.

The census of 1860, and this isn't an. Anyone can read the columns. You strip out the so called free North and look at the families, look at the household, and you'll find that roughly one in one white in five kept human beings as property with planter belts like Mississippi and South Carolina putting closer to one out of every two. So, no, we're not talking about 2%. We're talking about 20%.

In some places, 50%. So don't try to act like slave ownership or some fringe practice in the South. It wasn't. And the only reason that the percentages of ownership are higher among the general population is because of affordability, not because of morality. The highest percentage of slave ownership by Jews in the American South was only around 1.3%.

And that was just before the civil war, and that was the highest that they ever got.

Okay. It's been so this was the second part of what we were discussing inshallah. And now let's go on to the questions. So based on what we now heard, what motivates Westerners, we can just call it as it is, right, to rewrite narratives rather than face reality when historical truth become uncomfortable? How can we distinguish genuine scholarship from intentional distortion if statistically statistical data can be used selectively to mislead?

What insecurities or fears might, you know, be concealed by blaming minorities, by blaming the others? How does this desire of portraying your own group as flawless in some sense, you know, morally, intellectually, right, how does it encourage dishonesty and discourse and revisionism? Right? And not just historical. Of course, in this part, we are talking about historical revisionism, but we can see it occurring, you know, in front of our eyes.

Right? It's not something that is historical. It's something that is always there. Right? What responsibility do we, you know, as individuals and as middle nationers, as whatever in your field that you're doing, what is our responsibility to actively correct misinformation?

How does this distortion of historical distortion, for example, how does it affect collective memory of individuals living in that society and limit their ability to learn from their previous mistakes? Can any progress occur if we continually evade this uncomfortable truth by blaming any other vulnerable group? Okay. So, again, floor is yours, please.

Okay. So a lot has been, like, happening with regards to this topic. One of the oldest tricks in the book is changing history when the truth feels too heavy. And it's always easier just to twist the past than to admit faults in the present. And like we know, the West has perfected it.

And when we say the West, we don't mean actual people. We're really referring to institutions. We're really feeling, referring to certain mindset. You can actually be part of the West, and you're sitting in the East just because you reason the way that people in the West do or or that's part of that demographic. So it doesn't mean specifically the direction.

So they the the part of that I'm, when it comes to the ways and perfecting the art of rewriting the story, because they always want to make themselves look like the saviors and never the oppressors. And the reason why they do this and the reason why they bend the truth is because of fear, They don't want accountability. It was mentioned a little bit, yeah, earlier. They fear the face, or they fear facing the reality of this whole modern world, which was built on violence, on exploitation, and slavery. And if you distort the history, you can sleep at night, and you can tell your children bedtime stories about how you are actually the hero.

So that's how they spread lies. That's how revisionism works. And I see it all the time online with people that were, the oppressed previously. For example, black Americans. You can see online, they are so far removed from what reality is with regards to who they are.

You hear narratives such as we're not African. We're the real native Americans. We're the real Israelites. Atlanta was Atlantis. And these are not these are not facts.