ColonelHardstone

Palestinian Scholars Page (AI Translation Below): The Dialectic of the Zionist Risk, the Iranian Risk, and Today’s Duty in This Battle In these difficult times, under Zionist belligerence in our region and Israel’s explicit declaration of its intention to reshape the area under its control—what it calls “Greater Israel,” as envisaged by Israel and its allies—we must clearly determine our religious and political stance amid the ongoing Israeli–Iranian conflict, based on legitimate interests and what's demanded of Muslims individually, by scholars, governments, and nations. Much of our perspective is shaped by our view of both parties and the tragedies each has inflicted. Undeniably, both Iran and Israel have caused great harm to Muslim countries. Iran once asserted control over four Arab capitals, sowing instability—although that influence has since receded; Iran has been expelled from Syria, and its role in Lebanon and Iraq has been diminished. Meanwhile, Israel is a settler-colonial entity—existing solely on stolen land and holy sites—it occupies all of Palestine and parts of Syria and Lebanon. It dominates the region, waging a brutal war particularly in Gaza for nearly two years and desecrating sacred places. Its leaders openly aim to restructure the region under Israeli dominance, with American backing. Israel is even attacking Iran and bombing Syrian territory, killing and detaining people in places like Quneitra and western Daraa, and posing threats to Pakistan’s nuclear program and Turkey—seeing no nation’s existence as legitimate unless under its supremacy. Many public statements, articles, tweets, and government positions treat these two as equal dangers—as if we can sit back and watch them fight it out. Some even hope for the oppression of two oppressors—“that the oppressors destroy each other while we emerge unscathed.” But will we really emerge unscathed under current conditions? Or are we already caught in the crossfire? Is the danger truly symmetric, and is neutrality the correct stance? Or is this a much graver situation, where today’s attacker has us in its sights next? We must not dwell too much on historical grievances when addressing a battle of the present and future. Yes, we should not forget Iran’s past wrongs in Sunni lands—but our focus in this Israel–Iran context must be forward-looking, not backward. If Israel triumphs—God forbid—it will soon target Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, and others, following its priorities and leadership's statements. And with American and European support, its threat will be immediate. To Syrians especially (who have the most fresh wounds from Iran), remember: Israel is not just aiming at Iran and Palestine; its ambitions extend to all our lands. While Iran may act aggressively if it wins, its capacity is constrained by surrounding hostility. We urge all Muslims—and especially scholars, who rally and inspire—to understand thoroughly and not allow grief or anger to drive them to stances that inadvertently align with Israel. We must take a realistic view guided by national and religious interest, not emotions. I'm not asking anyone to forget the spilled blood or violated honor of the past. But what matters now is safeguarding collective existence moving forward. If we look at individual countries, each is in Israel’s crosshairs if it wins. It is not just a threat to Palestine—it is potentially a threat to all of us. We need greater awareness and deeper reflection in these conditions. Our governments must recognize this and stand against Zionist tyranny and expansion. Neutrality—or worse, tacit alignment—is unacceptable. I propose forming a real coalition of Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Muslim nations to unite and resist the American–Zionist offensive. Our people must pressure their leaders toward this alliance, resisting emotional urges that may inadvertently aid our enemy in this critical moment. In Islamic jurisprudence, Imam al-Sarakhsi said that if a Muslim lives in infidel territory and is attacked by other infidels, they may not side with the attackers unless it serves Muslim interests. That principle applies today—neutrality is not permissible, and siding with Zionists is not even by “well wishes” or prayers. We must stand firmly for our freedom and collective interest. AI Summary: Both Iran and Israel have harmed Muslims, but Israel poses a far greater and more immediate threat. Neutrality is dangerous; Zionist aggression threatens all Muslim countries. A pan-Muslim alliance (Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Malaysia, etc.) is urgently needed. Scholars and governments should guide people toward unity over emotional reactions.

It is my humble opinion that American attack on Iran is now almost certain. May Allah Ta'ala protect this Ummah and all the believers from the Fitnah of Dajjal and grant all believers safety and security (Ameen).

Pakistan (specifically Karachi) is going through a massive Yoga scene with many people publicly and privately participating in Yoga. I just found out that one of the leading experts in Pakistan is my cousin and been discussing what they do and how they identify postures and techniques rooted in Hinduism and separate it for Muslims. In a nutshell, many Ulama in Pakistan consider it permissible to practice Yoga as a system of exercise due to its benefits. I had a long and detailed discussion but in a nutshell it is summarized by Mufti Saheb here.

Every "skirmish" has both tactical and strategic dimensions. As always, the young officers, NCOs, and JCOs of the Pakistan Armed Forces distinguish themselves with courage and skill on the tactical front, often outperforming a numerically superior and better-equipped adversary. Yet, at the strategic level, Pakistan’s generals continue to bring disgrace through cowardice, incompetence, and shortsightedness. India, meanwhile, has successfully redrawn the strategic framework. Its official position now states: “Any future act of terror in India will be considered an act against the country and will be responded to accordingly.” This implies that any such incident—regardless of scope or origin—could justify repeated strikes on mainland Pakistan. The diplomatic groundwork for this shift has now been clearly established. In contrast, Pakistan’s response was strategically absent. Notably, there was no mention of the Indus Waters Treaty—once declared a red line by Pakistan itself. India has effectively redrawn its red line, while Pakistan has simply ignored its own. As a result, missile and drone strikes from India into Pakistani territory may now become normalized, triggered by any real or perceived provocation. The tactical gains achieved by the Pakistan Air Force are thus rendered meaningless by strategic blunders at the top. Instead of leveraging these moments to create long-term stability and deterrence, Pakistan’s military leadership has only invited further uncertainty. This chaos, unfortunately, serves their interests—it sustains their myth of strength among a misled public. As Sun Tzu aptly said: “An evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes.” From Ayub and Yahya to Zia-ul-Haq, Musharraf, Bajwa, Munir, and many others—these men have consistently chosen to sacrifice the nation’s future for the illusion of control. They would rather rule over ruins than relinquish their hold on power.

the response will be irregular, asymmetric, and disproportionate—

First and foremost, my condolences go out to the families and loved ones of all innocent civilians who tragically lost their lives. Noncombatant deaths are always a loss for humanity. Meanwhile, the media in both India and Pakistan—amplified by their respective governments—are driving sharply divergent narratives. In Pakistan, amidst intense political turmoil and military suppression, the dominant narrative is that this was a false flag operation orchestrated by the Indian government. In contrast, Indian media immediately blamed the Pakistani military, escalating rhetoric and issuing threats of retaliation against the Pakistani state. The Indian foreign office acted swiftly, taking five notable steps, the most significant being the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty—a move implying the potential cutting off of water supplies to Pakistan. But let’s assess the reality of this threat: India lacks the capacity—both technically and geographically—to unilaterally stop Pakistan’s water. The treaty is underpinned by the World Bank, giving it international legal and political weight. India is the upper riparian, meaning water flows from India to Pakistan. Any reckless attempt to divert or block this flow would set a dangerous precedent—one that China, the upper riparian for many of India’s rivers (originating from Tibet), could use against India in future disputes. From a global optics perspective, a false flag operation would undermine India's own image, especially while U.S. Vice President JD Vance was visiting—a crucial time when India is seeking to attract international investment and finalize key trade deals. So, who’s behind this incident? To answer that, we must consider geography and strategic positioning. Based on known deployments and regional characteristics: The LoC (Pakistan-administered Kashmir) is too far north for this to have occurred from there. Indian Punjab and adjoining regions are heavily militarized, making infiltration highly improbable from the west. The Ladakh sector is ruled out due to extreme cold and terrain challenges. That leaves Jammu, specifically its southern belt—a region with a significant Hindu population—as the likely area of infiltration. If that’s accurate, it raises a serious red flag for Indian security services, as it would indicate that militancy or insurgency is expanding beyond its traditional zones. Will there be a War? No sane person should ever wish for war. Innocent civilians on both sides of the border would suffer deeply due to the political brinkmanship of two narcissistic leaders—Narendra Modi and General Asim Munir. That said, the Modi government has boxed itself into a corner with increasingly aggressive rhetoric and slogans like "Ghar mein ghus ke maarenge" (“We’ll enter their homes and strike”). This kind of bravado has raised expectations that cannot be easily managed. From a conventional standpoint, India cannot engage in kinetic action against Pakistan without triggering serious consequences. Pakistan may be smaller and economically weaker, but that very imbalance means it has far less to lose—while India has everything to lose. Unfortunately, a segment of Indian society has come to view itself through a lens of hyper-masculinity and nationalism, disconnected from the strategic reality. After the events of 2019—when Pakistan shot down an Indian jet and captured its pilot—any future provocation will undoubtedly be met with retaliation. With General Asim Munir’s popularity at an all-time low, he may feel compelled to respond even more aggressively than the previous leadership to salvage his position. That, in itself, is a dangerous motivator. Escalation could spiral quickly, and Indian leadership is fully aware of this. The real danger lies in two leaders locked in a confrontation they can no longer control. It’s important to clarify that the current leadership of Pakistan’s military may not be driven by Islamic or patriotic ideals, but the rank-and-file soldiers, airmen, and sailors remain highly trained, disciplined, and motivated. For the people of Pakistan, it is time to accept the inevitability of an India-Pakistan conflict, not out of warmongering but as a call to vigilance. As the old Roman maxim says: “Si vis pacem, para bellum” – If you want peace, prepare for war. Until that moment comes, Pakistan must assure the international community that if India initiates kinetic action, the response will be irregular, asymmetric, and disproportionate—aimed not at escalation for its own sake, but to safeguard sovereignty and deter future aggression. For now, the people and Government of Pakistan must drop the stupid and ridiculous conspiracy theories and act to avoid war by following International norms and standards. We had our brothers telling us that 9/11 was a conspiracy and now we have Senior Deobandi Ulama confirming that 9/11 was done by Al-Qaeda and Taliban knew about it. What is the future? War is inevitable—and while India may be the one to initiate it, it will be the Muslims who bring it to a close. And by that, I do not mean the Muslims of Pakistan alone.

Beautiful summation from Ahadeeth of Rasul-ullah ﷺ Men are instructed to place the right hand above the left hand below the Navel in the Hanafi Madhab Men are instructed to place the right hand above the left hand below the Navel in the Hanbali Madhab The wording of placing the hands "upon the Chest" does not mean on the actual chest (by the rib cage) as it is contrary to Khusho and Makrooh but it actually means "above the Navel" as explained by Shaykul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (RA) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIqaOEu9pHQ Thus the 3 positions for placing the hands according to Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jamaah: Placing the right hand over the left hand below the Navel Placing the right hand over the left hand upon the Navel Placing the right hand over the left hand above the Navel

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c75nekwkd4yt Israeli society is protesting not because of thousands of children being killed because 6 Jews were killed. This is a truly SICK society!