In your own words, what exactly is being "divided" when Shahid says "separate your hands from our throats," and how does that clarify justice?
How does he define "us vs them" by conduct (actions and beliefs) not identity ("not your skin color… nationality… ethnicity")?
Try in your own words to distinguish the "good separation" he describes from "divide and rule" tactic imposed on us.
When is a generalized stance warranted despite the "one-by-one interview" objection Westerners have ("hold your fire because I think one of those archers didn't shoot his bow"), and what safeguard against bigotry does Shahid himself give (hint: the beliefs/actions criterion)?


Practical application (provide your responses and justification):

a) A local paper/article/headline calls your mosque "divisive" for declining a platform to a war-backing official. How would you frame your reply based on your understanding of Middle Nation?
b) How would you answer the typical "any us vs them mindset is harmful"?
c) Write one sentence that "clarifies justice" without identity labels (Westerner, American, etc...)

Based on the video “The Duty to Draw Lines”, express the positive criteria for affiliation and triggers for disavowal while thinking about the following scenarios:

1) A non-Muslim neighbor/classmate/colleague consistently defends your rights and “stands for justice”. How would you apply loyalty/affiliation?

2) A Muslim repeatedly dishonors and attacks your brothers and sisters in Islam (can be family members, rulers, and other Muslims in general). How do you respond?

3) How would you answer the general question of “isn’t this intolerance?”

The belief that the “Trump Gaza Peace Plan” is another iteration of Western colonization, or even potentially part of achieving the “Greater Israel” fantasy; is based on two things. One is guided by experience, the other misguided by it.

That experience is that no peace plan has ever benefited the Palestinians, no treaty is ever respected by the Israelis or the Americans, and there has only ever been one agenda; which is to occupy, subjugate, and ethnically cleanse. This historical reality is the basis for much of the suspicions about the plan.

The other basis of suspicion is that experience has shown us that America and Israel have had the unchallenged power to do as they wish; and this is where that experience is misguiding people because they have not understood that America and Israel’s unchallenged power existed within a context, and that context no longer exists.

Brevity is the soul of wit.


1) In your own words, how do you understand and define the “good Muslim” trap?

2) A well-known Muslim public figure errs on camera/social media (says something that is wrong by mistake). What do you do publicly vs privately? How would you respond to the “public wrongs require public condemnation” notion in this case?

3) Why does Shahid include the rulers of the Muslim lands in his caution against the classic divide and rule tactic? What are the ways in which one might fall into that trap?

4) How do you understand the term “performative condemnation” and how would you relate it to the cases mentioned above?

Premiering in 25 minutes:
https://youtu.be/82PRWqS-284

What are you three favorite Middle Nation videos to date?

explain your choices in one paragraph (no essays).

Premiering in one hour:
https://youtu.be/C51yRnLilyk

One year ago today.
ITYS

Based on the Middle Nation Regions Briefing: GCC Integration & Saudi-Pakistan Security Pact:

Which of the GCC countries do you think will benefit the most from the GCC unified visa and why?

Explain your choice in one paragraph.

This is the second half of Brother Shahid's conversation with Sister Nisa Bardien about South Africa. It addresses broader issues than were covered in the latest Regions Briefing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTNWIZBbd5U

Based on the recent “Middle Nation Regions Briefing: South Africa”

If South Africa’s justice system is being cleaned from the bottom up, but foreign and political influence at the top stays untouched; is that real reform, or managed control?

Explain your briefings-based understanding in 1 paragraph

Premiering in 20 minutes:
https://youtu.be/0xR-AMDRV2o

Premiering in 10 minutes:
https://youtu.be/KjEOXtY8hpQ

In any conflict, you have to look at at least 4 things:
-- What is happening
-- What is likely to happen
-- What should happen
-- What are the narratives about what is happening and what should happen (and why this narratives are being pushed)

You can look at Sudan, for example.

What IS happening:
An internal conflict between two local power players — the SAF and the RSF; with external players taking sides in this power struggle.

What is likely to happen:
A de-facto partitioning of Sudan, with the RSF becoming a regional authority in Darfur and adjacent areas, a negotiated autonomy that falls short of official secession.

What SHOULD happen:
The RSF should be completely eliminated; defeated, disarmed, and punished for crimes against humanity.

What the narratives are saying:
The RSF is a proxy militia of the UAE committing genocide in Sudan mostly for the sake of extracting gold; it is a form of Arab colonization against Africans. The UAE, therefore, should be boycotted and vilified by the international community.

Thus, you can see, quite transparently, that this narrative is not aimed at resolving the conflict in Sudan; it is aimed at attacking the UAE, which has been a leading force behind the regional plan for the Middle East, and has increasingly aligned itself with China and Russia and the Anational OCGFC, and largely detached itself from the political faction of the Neocons in Washington.
By framing the UAE's role in Sudan (which is highly exaggerated and misrepresented), the narrative also seeks to undermine the building of collective sovereignty across the Muslim lands of the Middle East and North Africa by depicting this as neocolonialism or imperialism; and by injecting the Arab VS African racial element into the scenario.
This narrative is being pushed with greater vigour now, following the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, as colonizer activists in the West and Muslim diaspora find themselves in need of a new cause to use as a vehicle for taqwa-signalling; and as the Neocons feel themselves rapidly losing control over the region's future.

Premiering in one hour:
https://youtu.be/OHSWl16bavk

You know what I find odd and interesting? In the US, you always hear about these doomsday cults, these weird (usually) Christian sects that form around some dude calling himself a prophet or what have you. They pool their money, buy land, build compounds, and become literally economically self-sufficient, sometimes with enterprises with revenues into the millions.

But people will not do this just for the sake of doing it. Coming together as a community, pooling resources, starting farms or businesses, and becoming completely autonomous economic ecosystems. They won't do it just because it makes sense to do it. Even though you see plenty examples of these loopy cults doing it. Like, you NEED some weird fanatical woo-woo rationale for doing something that is objectively positive and beneficial for you. It always has to be built around wack-a-doo beliefs, and include twisted practices, abuse, and cult leader tyranny.

It is utterly bizarre.

Imagine the following scenario:

WhatsApp family forward of a viral infographic claiming that "UAE is stealing Sudan’s gold into state coffers", or "proving" that UAE control the RSF.

Based on the video "Sudan, RSF & the UAE: Exposing the Colonizer-Activism Playbook" provide your response (3–6 sentences) using the Middle Nation framework.


Possible hints from the video: evidence vs algorithmic narrative, flag wedge tactic, "region awash in weapons" and RSF origins (Janjaweed/Bashir), legal trade/ports/farmland vs smuggling anecdotes, ICJ lack of jurisdiction/evidence, Western intervention, the realpolitik outcome (RSF as long-standing actor, negotiation/partition).