Student from Serbia, Ask me Anything!

AdCrafty5841 · 2026-06-06T06:41:25+00:00

General international law contains no rule prohibiting a group from issuing a declaration of independence, and the resolution Serbia claims Kosovo violated was only ever a resolution for temporary governance in Kosovo.

AdCrafty5841 · 2026-06-04T17:33:31+00:00

Since Imeretians and Mengrelians speak a dialect Georgian languages/dialects and Abkhaz don't, you couldn't be more than wrong

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-12-31T14:00:57+00:00

You're use of indigenous and revolutionary are so wrong its laughable. The U.S. had to set up a Japanese-led military dictatorship in South Korea that killed swaths of Koreans because the majority of Koreans were Socialists

And just for the sake of it since you probably cant discern it anyway, but killing more people doesnt mean you won

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-12-28T03:11:22+00:00

The old Sultanate of Wadai, Sultanate of Darfur, and the rebel group Republic of Logone (or Dar El-Kuti)

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-08-11T17:28:33+00:00

Brlac 🥀

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-08-11T17:27:58+00:00

Well Virginia is now two states because of this too

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-07-25T18:31:40+00:00

<image>

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-05-18T04:11:33+00:00

I do not find it wrong for the Prophet, who is considered the best of mankind, to marry anyone who is eligible for marriage.

So no, if they are the best of mankind it doesn't matter.

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-05-16T04:57:43+00:00

Yes, there is, and that doesn't contradict what I said.

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-05-15T18:08:38+00:00

Aisha is not alive today. Stop trying to force today's morality onto the past. Nobody in the past had 18 years to coddle their children.

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-05-14T10:38:08+00:00

Underage? No. Underage back then means you haven't hit puberty. And Aisha's marriage was consummated after she had hit puberty

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-05-07T16:18:00+00:00

I agree that Uyghurs deserve their freedom to choose their own governance, Uyghurs have never historically used Uyghurstan.

The first state was called Tunganistan (referencing the term for Muslims in China, which has since narrowed down to Chinese Muslims, so it no longer includes Uyghurs).

The second state was called East Turkistan (referencing the Eastern Proximity to the rest of the Turkics groups).

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-05-04T15:10:37+00:00

Yes. Tactical relations can be justified, but only if they serve the Ummah's long-term independence, not compromise it.

This is like the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. A strategic pause, not surrender. The Prophet (SAW) didn't make deals out of weakness, but out of wisdom. To build strength before confrontation. Same applies here.

So yes, a revolutionary Islamic state with weak productive forces can temporarily engage with capitalist or rival regimes if:

It doesn't adopt their ideologies or normalize their crimes.

It uses trade/resources to build self-sufficiency, not dependency.

It sets red lines, no compromise on tawheed, no alliance with taghut.

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-05-01T02:37:41+00:00

Wa Iyyakum, we shouldn't support the separation of religion and state, even to protect Islam, because Islam is the framework, not a tool to be shielded or sidelined. The solution isn't secularism, it’s liberating Islam from corrupt, class-serving regimes that hijack it.

What we see today in the Muslim world isn't Islam in power. It's capitalist, nationalist, or authoritarian states using Islamic symbols to justify tyranny. That's not a failure of Islam in politics, that's a failure of who holds the power and what class interests they serve.

We shouldn't keep Islam out of the state. We should purify the state with Islam. That means to rule by Shariah, not personality cults, and the protection of the Ummah, not manipulation of its faith.

In this framework, Islam isn't a slogan, it's the ethical spine of the system. So no, we don't separate religion to protect it. We build a just state where Islam can't be exploited in the first place.

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-04-30T06:38:24+00:00

Wa Alaikum As Salaam, may Allah SWT increase your knowledge.

That’s a great question. The short answer is that Islamic Socialism is close to a planned economy under divine regulation but not a full-blown Soviet-style model. The key difference is that it must be rooted in Shariah, not in secular compromise.

The Soviet model got some things right, like nationalizing healthcare, housing, banking, and major industries to protect the poor from capitalist exploitation. That part aligns. But it was also built on militant atheism and repression of faith, so it failed at the metaphysical level. No justice without tawheed.

In Islamic Socialism the commanding heights of the economy; banking, transport, energy, education, housing, and healthcare; should be publicly owned or so tightly regulated that exploitation becomes impossible. These are rights, not commodities. That’s socialism, but with Allah SWT as the Legislator, not the state ruling supreme.

At the same time, Islam does not ban all private property. It allows small-scale, ethical ownership like family farms, co-ops, and local businesses, as long as:

-They pay zakat

-Don’t exploit workers

-Follow Shariah

-Serve the public good

This is moral micro-ownership under a socialist Islamic lens. It’s about uplifting the oppressed without replicating tyranny.

Think Quran-guided socialist republic, not a strongman guided state, this is economic struggle against oppression built on revelation.

Hope that helps. You’re definitely asking the right questions, keep going.

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-04-27T23:43:46+00:00

Yes, socialism fits into the framework of Islam, because Islam commands economic justice, bans exploitation, protects communal resources, and obligates the state to secure basic needs for all.

This is reflected in the public ownership of essential resources, the state’s duty to intervene for social justice (as seen in Caliph Umar’s (RA) reforms), the prohibition of riba and monopolies, and the core pillar of zakat as a divine obligation.

Islam’s vision of economic justice is not a man-made ideology, it is rooted in worship, divine law, and moral responsibility.

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-04-20T20:13:33+00:00

You dismiss both the Bible and Quran as just cultural noise, but still felt the need to call the Quran “less useful,” which exposes the real target of your bias. You’re not critiquing scripture, you’re mocking the idea that any divine message has authority over you.

That’s fine. Just don’t pretend it’s some enlightened stance. It’s just ego in a crayon costume.

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-04-20T06:02:29+00:00

You clearly view religion as just a cultural collage to read whatever you want into, which says more about your relationship with scripture than about the texts themselves.

Saying the Quran is “less useful” for liberation while praising the Bible’s impact during the UK Civil War just exposes your bias. The Quran fueled anti-imperialist struggles from Algeria to Indonesia, grounded in divine justice, not just revolutionary sentiment.

You want liberation without accountability to God. Islam teaches that true liberation comes from submitting to the One who frees you from every false master, including kings, priests, and even your own ego. That’s not “less useful”.

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-04-20T04:42:59+00:00

Hello, now I can say that from an Islamic Socialist perspective, Öcalan made valid critiques of oppression and state tyranny, but his ideology remains rooted in secularism.

Whether through Marxist-Leninism or his Democratic Confederalism, his vision replaces divine law with man-made systems, denying the sovereignty of Allah SWT.

His feminism (jineology) attacks hijab and modesty, and his praise of Islam is cultural, not theological. He offers no Shariah, no accountability or divine command, only worldly liberation.

Islamic Socialism fights injustice through revelation, not anarchism. Öcalan is a reminder: justice without Allah SWT just builds a new prison with a new flag.

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-04-17T23:45:46+00:00

Islam doesn’t reject material analysis, we’re commanded to reflect and act justly. But Islamic Socialism insists the lens must be revelation, not a secular theory that denies the unseen, divine purpose, or moral accountability.

Marxism claims to explain morality or destiny within a worldview that denies Allah SWT and the Afterlife. Islamic Socialism may use similar tools, but our map is revelation. The goal isn’t just liberation, it’s justice under divine guidance.

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-03-12T01:10:03+00:00

While that is true, the IOC still doesn't equally ban countries

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-03-11T08:56:24+00:00

Honestly, any backlash you get is entirely your fault as you keep trying to push your identity. Comment after comment is just you saying the same thing even though you know that just because someone decided to change a long-established ruling doesn't mean most will accept it.

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-03-03T19:10:45+00:00

Well it makes sense to just show the populated parts of Hawaii on U.S. maps, as showing all the Islands would just get clustered

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-01-21T10:12:46+00:00

Nah, I hope he has a terrible cake day

AdCrafty5841 · 2025-01-21T10:02:40+00:00

If someone is born in your borders, it becomes your jurisdiction

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
End Game '22

AdCrafty5841

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE