The “Great Replacement” is a widely discredited far-right extremist conspiracy theory claiming that white European populations are being intentionally supplanted by non-white immigrants, especially from Muslim-majority countries. The term was popularized by French writer Renaud Camus, who alleges that political and cultural elites are deliberately engineering demographic change through immigration policies and declining birth rates among white Europeans.

The Great Replacement (French: grand remplacement), also called replacement theory, is a widely discredited far-right, white nationalist conspiracy theory associated with French writer Renaud Camus. It claims that, with the cooperation of so-called “replacist” elites, ethnic French and broader white European populations are being deliberately “replaced” by non-white immigrants—often framed as coming mainly from Muslim-majority countries—through mass migration, higher demographic growth among newcomers, and declining birth rates among white Europeans. Variations of this narrative have since appeared in other countries, especially the United States.

Scholars reject the theory’s central premise of an organized plot, noting that it relies on misread demographic data and promotes an unscientific, racist worldview. Although anxieties about immigration and cultural change have existed for generations, Camus popularized the specific label in his 2011 book Le Grand Remplacement, which portrays Muslim presence in France as a civilizational threat and casts demographic change as an intentional “substitution.”

The idea has been embraced by some far-right and anti-immigrant movements across Europe and North America, often presenting immigration as an “invasion” meant to make white populations minorities in their own countries. It overlaps with broader “white genocide” narratives, frequently swapping older antisemitic framing for Islamophobic themes—though antisemitic tropes still persist in many versions.

While Camus has publicly denounced violence, researchers argue the theory’s framing of migrants as an existential threat can function as a rhetorical justification for extremist action. References to the Great Replacement have appeared in propaganda and manifestos linked to several far-right terrorists, and the narrative has also been echoed by some high-profile political and media figures.

Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States

The history of firearms begins in 10th-century China, where early gunpowder weapons emerged from the innovation of mounting tubes filled with explosive powder onto spears, creating portable “fire lances.” Over the following centuries, these devices evolved into a wide range of weapons, including handheld firearms such as flintlocks and blunderbusses, as well as fixed artillery pieces like cannons. By the 15th century, gunpowder technology had spread throughout Eurasia. Firearms played decisive roles in major historical events, including the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the expansion of European colonial empires in the Americas, Africa, and Oceania.

The pace of innovation accelerated dramatically in the 19th and 20th centuries with the development of metal cartridges, rifled barrels, repeating mechanisms, belt-fed systems, and ultimately automatic weapons such as machine guns. While early firearms relied on black powder as a propellant, modern weapons use smokeless powder or other advanced propellants.

Separate from firearms but often mentioned in discussions of early weaponry is Greek fire, an incendiary weapon reportedly used by the Byzantine Empire between the 7th and 14th centuries. Though sometimes delivered through siphon-like flamethrowers or grenades, its composition remains uncertain and it does not appear to be directly related to Chinese gunpowder weapons or later firearms.

10th–12th Centuries: Origins in China

The first true firearms developed in China following the invention of gunpowder. The earliest known depiction of a gunpowder weapon appears in a 10th-century silk banner from Dunhuang illustrating a fire lance. These early weapons consisted of paper or bamboo tubes filled with black powder and attached to spears, functioning primarily as flamethrowers. Over time, shrapnel or pellets were added so that projectiles would be expelled along with the flame.

Historical records, such as accounts of the 1132 siege of De’an during the Jin–Song Wars, describe the use of fire lances in battle. As gunpowder formulas improved—particularly through increased saltpeter content—barrels were reinforced with metal to withstand greater explosive force. Eventually, projectiles were shaped to fit the barrel more precisely, leading to the development of the hand cannon: a metal-barreled weapon firing a properly sized projectile using high-nitrate gunpowder.

By the 12th century, sculptures in Sichuan depicted vase-shaped bombards firing cannonballs, indicating the clear transition from flame-based weapons to true projectile firearms.

13th Century: Expansion Across Asia

The oldest surviving firearm, the Heilongjiang hand cannon dated to 1288, was discovered in northeastern China. Contemporary records describe its use in suppressing rebellions during the Yuan dynasty.

Gunpowder technology spread beyond China during the Mongol expansions of the 13th century. Campaigns into Southeast Asia likely transmitted knowledge of firearm production. Inscriptions from Vietnam in 1312 reference guns and ammunition among captured spoils, suggesting regional familiarity with such weapons.

Some scholars argue that early cannon were used in the 1260 Battle of Ain Jalut between the Mamluks and Mongols, though historians continue to debate the timing and origin of gunpowder’s introduction to the Islamic world.

14th–15th Centuries: The Middle East and Europe

By the late 13th or early 14th century, firearms had appeared in the Middle East. The Ottoman Empire began using handheld firearms, including early arquebuses and muskets, between the late 14th and mid-15th centuries. Firearms manuals from China in the late 16th century even described Turkish muskets as superior to their European counterparts.

In Southeast Asia, firearm production developed through the blending of Arab, Turkish, Portuguese, and local traditions. The capture of Malacca in 1511 facilitated further technological exchange, leading to the Indo-Portuguese matchlock tradition and the creation of the istinggar arquebus.

In South Asia, firearms were recorded in use by the late 14th century. The Mughal Empire incorporated Turkish firearms in the 16th century, contributing to decisive victories such as the First Battle of Panipat. Mughal emperors refined matchlock design, while other regional powers—including the Marathas, Mysore under Tipu Sultan, and the Sikh Empire under Maharaja Ranjit Singh—developed their own artillery and firearm traditions.

In Europe, gunpowder likely arrived via trade routes such as the Silk Road or through Mongol invasions. By the mid-14th century, cannons were used in sieges such as the English campaign at Calais. Smaller portable hand cannons appeared in Italy in the late 14th century. During the Hussite Wars (1419–1434), firearms became central to battlefield tactics, and the Czech term houfnice eventually gave rise to the English word “howitzer.”

Early Modern Developments

During the early modern period, ignition systems evolved from matchlocks to wheellocks, snaplocks, flintlocks, and finally percussion caps. Paper cartridges were introduced before the late 16th century, and bayonets appeared in France during the same era.

The development of fixed metallic cartridges in the 19th century revolutionized firearms. Brass cartridge cases combined primer, powder, and projectile into a single waterproof unit. When fired, the brass expanded to seal the breech, preventing dangerous gas escape and greatly improving reliability.

Institutions such as the Springfield Armory in Massachusetts played a key role in advancing breech-loading rifles during the mid-19th century. By this time, metallurgy had progressed sufficiently to allow mass production of durable ammunition cases.

Repeating and Automatic Firearms

Repeating firearms, capable of firing multiple rounds before reloading, emerged through mechanisms such as bolt-action, lever-action, and revolving cylinders. Revolvers, introduced in the 19th century, held cartridges in a rotating cylinder that functioned as both magazine and chamber. Single-action revolvers required manual cocking before each shot, while double-action designs allowed firing by simply pulling the trigger.

Self-loading and automatic weapons represented another major leap. The Gatling gun, invented during the American Civil War, used a hand-cranked mechanism. In 1884, Hiram Maxim developed the first true fully automatic machine gun, which used recoil energy to cycle rounds.

The early 20th century saw further innovations:

• The Mondragón rifle (1908) became one of the first successful self-loading rifles.

• The MP18, introduced in 1918, was the first practical submachine gun.

• The German StG 44 of World War II became the first widely recognized assault rifle, firing intermediate cartridges with selective fire capability.

• The AK-47 later became the most widely produced assault rifle in history.

Battle rifles such as the M1 Garand retained powerful full-size cartridges, but their recoil made fully automatic fire difficult to control, leading many militaries to adopt intermediate-caliber assault rifles instead.

Overall, firearms evolved from simple flame-projecting tubes in medieval China into highly sophisticated mechanical and chemical systems that reshaped warfare, politics, and global history.

The Ten Lost Tribes refer to ten of the original Twelve Tribes of Israel that were said to have been exiled after the Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire around 720 BCE. The tribes traditionally identified as “lost” are Reuben, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, and Ephraim. Only Judah and Benjamin, centered in the southern Kingdom of Judah, remained intact until the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. Members of the Tribe of Levi were dispersed among both kingdoms in designated cities rather than assigned territorial land.

The exile of the northern kingdom’s population—often called the Assyrian captivity—was part of the Assyrian imperial policy of deporting and resettling conquered peoples. Ancient historian Josephus later claimed that the ten tribes were still living beyond the Euphrates in his own day, forming a vast population.

Biblical Background

The principal scriptural reference appears in 2 Kings 17:6, which describes the Assyrian king deporting the Israelites from Samaria to regions of Assyria and Media.

According to biblical tradition, the united monarchy of Israel split around 930 BCE. The northern tribes rejected Rehoboam, son of Solomon, and formed the Kingdom of Israel. The southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained loyal to him, forming the Kingdom of Judah.

In the eighth century BCE, Assyrian campaigns gradually dismantled the northern kingdom. Tiglath-Pileser III annexed large portions of territory and deported inhabitants from regions such as Gilead and Galilee. Later, Shalmaneser V and Sargon II completed the conquest of Samaria.

Modern historians note that deportations certainly occurred, but they may not have involved the entire population. Archaeological and demographic research suggests that many Israelites remained in the land. Some migrated south into Judah, and others became part of what later developed into the Samaritan community.

Apocryphal and Later Jewish Traditions

Later Jewish and apocalyptic texts expanded the story of the tribes’ disappearance. In 2 Esdras (4 Ezra), the tribes are said to have journeyed to a distant land called Arzareth, beyond the Euphrates, where they would remain until the end times. Similarly, 2 Baruch speaks of communication with the “nine and a half tribes” living beyond the river.

In rabbinic literature, debate arose over whether the ten tribes would ever return. Some authorities, such as Rabbi Akiva, suggested they would not; others maintained that eventual restoration remained possible.

Medieval Jewish legends described the tribes as living beyond the mythical Sambation River, cut off from the rest of the Jewish world.

Christian Interpretations

Christian traditions often linked the return of the lost tribes with messianic expectations. From the early modern period onward, speculation about their whereabouts intensified. In the seventeenth century, Menasseh ben Israel published The Hope of Israel, arguing that Indigenous peoples of the Americas might descend from the lost tribes. Such ideas gained traction during the Age of Exploration, when European encounters with distant peoples fueled biblical interpretations of global history.

The concept also plays a significant role in the Latter-day Saint movement. The Book of Mormon teaches that groups of Israelites migrated to the Americas before the Babylonian exile and became ancestors of some Native American peoples. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints emphasizes both a spiritual and eventual physical “gathering of Israel,” including the restoration of the lost tribes.

Historical Perspectives

Modern scholarship generally concludes that while deportations did occur, the idea of ten entire tribes disappearing wholesale is unlikely. Large-scale deportations took place in parts of Transjordan and Galilee, and certain tribal identities faded from historical records. However:

• Many Israelites likely remained in the region of Samaria.

• Some joined the Kingdom of Judah.

• Others were absorbed into surrounding populations.

The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia summarizes the prevailing scholarly view: some members of the northern tribes remained in the land, some assimilated into neighboring peoples, and others merged with Judean exiles. Unlike the Babylonian exile of Judah—after which a clear return is documented—the Assyrian deportees appear to have gradually lost a distinct collective identity.

Search and Cultural Fascination

The disappearance of the tribes has inspired centuries of speculation, exploration, and myth. Various groups across Asia, Africa, and the Americas have claimed descent from them. Historian Tudor Parfitt argues that the legend became especially influential during European colonial expansion, shaping encounters with Indigenous peoples.

Modern genetic studies have explored possible connections between Jewish diaspora communities and certain groups claiming Israelite ancestry. Research on communities such as the Lemba of southern Africa and the Bene Israel of India has revealed evidence of Middle Eastern paternal ancestry, though such findings do not confirm direct descent from specific biblical tribes.

Anthropologist Shalva Weil has documented numerous global traditions linking communities to the Ten Lost Tribes, illustrating the enduring power of the narrative.

Conclusion

The Ten Lost Tribes occupy a space between history, theology, and legend. While ancient deportations are historically attested, the notion of ten tribes vanishing entirely has likely been shaped and expanded by later religious imagination. The idea continues to influence religious thought, cultural identity, and historical speculation across the world.

The Book of Tobit is a work of Second Temple Jewish literature dating to the third or early second century BC. It is included among the deuterocanonical books in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity and is regarded as apocryphal in Protestant traditions. The book highlights themes of divine testing, the power of prayer, and God’s protection of the covenant people of Israel.

The Codex Amiatinus, also called the Jarrow Codex, is widely regarded as the best-preserved manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Bible. It was produced around AD 700 in northeast England at the Benedictine monastery of Monkwearmouth–Jarrow in the Northumbrian kingdom (now South Tyneside). It was one of three enormous single-volume Bibles made there, and it is the earliest complete one-volume Latin Bible that survives (with only the León palimpsest representing an older witness in another form). It is also the oldest surviving Bible in which the books of the canon appear in what are essentially their Vulgate texts.

In 716, the manuscript was taken to Italy as a gift intended for Pope Gregory II. Its modern name comes from Monte Amiata in Tuscany, where it was later identified at the Abbey of San Salvatore. Today it is housed in Florence at the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (the Laurentian Library).

Scholars designate the manuscript with the siglum A (or am) and often treat it as the most reliable surviving witness to Jerome’s Vulgate text for the New Testament and much of the Old Testament. In keeping with early Vulgate practice, it lacks the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, and Lamentations follows Jeremiah without a break. Ezra–Nehemiah appears as a single continuous book, and the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are each presented as single unified works.

Physical and Textual Features

Codex Amiatinus is a massive volume—about 49 cm (19¼ in) tall, 34 cm (13⅜ in) wide, and 18 cm (7 in) thick—weighing more than 34 kg (75 lb). It contains roughly 1,040 vellum leaves, arranged primarily in quires of four sheets. The text is written in large, regular uncial script in two columns per page, typically with 43–44 lines per column. Word spacing is minimal, making the writing appear nearly continuous.

Instead of punctuation, the text is laid out in sense-units (often described as cola et commata), which visually guide the reader through clauses and sentence structure. The manuscript’s formatting and some aspects of its presentation likely reflect influence from the Codex Grandior associated with Cassiodorus, which the Jarrow community is thought to have possessed and used as a model.

The Psalms are notable: Amiatinus presents Jerome’s Hebrew-based Psalter (his third version) rather than the older Roman Psalter or Jerome’s later Gallican Psalter that became dominant in many medieval Vulgates. Even so, the Amiatinus Psalms are often viewed as a weaker textual witness than some other manuscripts, and certain headings suggest an Irish psalter tradition as part of its background.

Although it includes limited decoration—most notably two full-page miniatures—it shows little of the distinctive “Insular” artistic style, suggesting that its imagery was copied from late antique models.

History and Later Importance

The production of the great pandect Bibles at Monkwearmouth–Jarrow is traditionally connected to Abbot Ceolfrith, with AD 692 often cited as the start of the project. The Venerable Bede may have been involved in compilation and correction, and some scholars have proposed that traces of his handwriting could be present.

Ceolfrith personally accompanied the copy later known as Codex Amiatinus in 716, but he died on the journey in Burgundy. The manuscript later appears at the Abbey of San Salvatore at Monte Amiata, where it is recorded in an 11th-century inventory, and it remained there until it was transferred to the Laurentian Library in Florence in 1786.

For a time, the codex was mistakenly believed to be an Italian production from the 6th century, but in the late 19th century scholars demonstrated its English origin and connected it to the Monkwearmouth–Jarrow Bibles mentioned by Bede. Even with this corrected dating, it remains the oldest surviving complete text of the Vulgate.

During the Counter-Reformation, the manuscript acquired major symbolic importance in debates over textual authority. It was consulted in Rome when Pope Sixtus V pursued a revised Vulgate edition, though later official Vulgate editions did not consistently adopt its readings. In modern scholarship, however, Codex Amiatinus became a cornerstone witness: it served as a primary source for the Oxford critical edition of the Vulgate New Testament and strongly influenced subsequent critical work on the Vulgate, including editions prepared by Benedictine scholars in Rome.

Today, Codex Amiatinus is preserved at the Laurentian Library under the shelfmark Amiatino 1 and remains one of the most important manuscripts for the study of the Latin Bible.

The Vulgate is a late–fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible, produced largely through the work of Saint Jerome. In 382, Pope Damasus I commissioned Jerome to revise the Latin Gospels then used by the Roman Church, which belonged to the older Vetus Latina tradition. Jerome later expanded the project on his own, revising and translating most of the rest of Scripture.

Over time, the Vulgate became the standard biblical text of the Western Church, gradually displacing the diverse Vetus Latina versions. By the thirteenth century it was commonly called the versio vulgata—the “version in common use”—or simply the Vulgate. It also incorporated several books that Jerome did not revise, preserving earlier Vetus Latina translations alongside his own work.

The Catholic Church formally affirmed the Vulgate’s authority at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), declaring it the authentic Latin Bible for public use. At that point, however, no single definitive edition existed. Official versions later followed: the Sixtine Vulgate (1590), the Clementine Vulgate (1592), and the Nova Vulgata (1979). The Clementine edition served for centuries as the standard Bible of the Roman Rite until it was replaced by the Nova Vulgata, which remains the official Latin Bible of the Latin Church today.

Terminology

The earliest known use of the label Vulgata for Jerome’s “new” translation appears in the thirteenth century, notably in the writings of Roger Bacon. The term also gained prominence in early printed Latin Bibles, where it distinguished the widely used Vulgate text from more recent humanist revisions and alternative Latin translations.

Authorship and Textual Character

Although the Vulgate is traditionally associated with Jerome, it is not a single-author work. Jerome revised the four Gospels using Greek manuscripts as his reference, but much of the remaining New Testament appears to reflect later revisions of Vetus Latina texts by other hands. Likewise, several deuterocanonical and additional books entered the Vulgate through unrevised or separately transmitted Latin traditions.

Jerome translated most of the Hebrew Bible directly from Hebrew—a major departure from earlier Latin versions, which typically relied on Greek sources. He also produced multiple Latin versions of the Psalms for different contexts, translated Tobit and Judith from Aramaic sources, and translated additions to Esther and Daniel from Greek. As a result, the Vulgate is best understood as a composite biblical collection that gathered Jerome’s work together with inherited and parallel Latin materials.

Contents in Broad Outline

In many historical Vulgate manuscripts, the collection typically included:

• New Testament: Jerome’s revised Gospels, plus the rest of the New Testament in revised Vetus Latina form.

• Old Testament: Jerome’s translations from Hebrew for most books, alongside his Greek-based Psalter and Greek-derived additions to Esther and Daniel.

• Deuterocanonical and additional books: a mixture of Jerome’s translations and older Latin versions that were never revised by him, with the exact contents varying by manuscript tradition and later editorial practice.

Jerome’s Approach

Jerome did not begin with the intent of producing an entirely new Latin Bible, and his correspondence shows that his project expanded over time. A major theme in his prefaces is his preference for the Hebraica veritas—the “Hebrew truth”—which he often defended against critics who preferred the Septuagint. He also wrote numerous prologues introducing individual books, shaping later medieval assumptions about biblical canon and translation authority.

Relationship to the Vetus Latina

The Vetus Latina refers to the earlier Latin biblical translations that circulated before Jerome. These texts developed gradually, varied widely in quality, and often existed in multiple competing forms for the same book. The Vulgate did not immediately replace them; early medieval Bibles sometimes retained Vetus Latina readings, especially in certain books. Over the High Middle Ages, however, the Vulgate increasingly became dominant.

Status in the Catholic Tradition

The Council of Trent affirmed the Vulgate’s authority chiefly because of its long-standing liturgical and ecclesial use, rather than because it was judged the best text for reconstructing the original Hebrew and Greek. Later Catholic teaching clarified that its “authenticity” functions as a reliable standard for faith and morals in Church use, rather than as a guarantee that every wording choice is philologically identical to the earliest manuscripts.

The Ethiopian calendar (Amharic: የኢትዮጵያ ዘመን አቆጣጠር; Geʽez: ዐውደ ወርኅ; Tigrinya: ዓዉደ ኣዋርሕ), also known as the Geʽez calendar, is the official civil calendar of Ethiopia. It is also used culturally in Eritrea and among Ethiopian and Eritrean diaspora communities. In addition, it serves as the ecclesiastical calendar for the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Ethiopian and Eritrean Catholic Churches, and Protestant P'ent'ay communities.

This calendar is a solar system closely related to the Coptic calendar of Egypt and shares structural similarities with the ancient Julian calendar. Like the Julian system, it adds a leap day every four years without exception. The Ethiopian year begins on September 11 in the Gregorian calendar, or September 12 in the year preceding a Gregorian leap year (for the period 1900–2099).

Structure of the Calendar

The Ethiopian calendar consists of 13 months:

• Twelve months of exactly 30 days each

• A 13th month, Pagumē, containing 5 days, or 6 days in a leap year

A sixth epagomenal (extra) day is added every four years on August 29 of the Julian calendar. Because of differences in calculating the date of the Annunciation of Jesus, the Ethiopian calendar is generally 7 to 8 years behind the Gregorian calendar.

Ethiopian New Year

The Ethiopian New Year, known as Enkutatash in Amharic and Kudus Yohannes in Geʽez and Tigrinya, falls on September 11 (or September 12 before a Gregorian leap year). The ecclesiastical New Year, called El-Nayrouz, corresponds to August 29 or 30 in the Julian calendar, which translates to September 11 or 12 in the Gregorian calendar.

Between 1900 and 2099, the date alignment remains consistent, although the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars gradually increases over time.

Historical Eras

Today, Ethiopian and Eritrean churches use the Incarnation Era, dating from the Annunciation of Jesus on March 25, AD 9 (Julian), as calculated by Annianus of Alexandria around AD 400. The first Ethiopian civil year began on August 29, AD 8 (Julian).

Because Europe later adopted calculations by Dionysius Exiguus in AD 525—placing the Annunciation nine years earlier—the Ethiopian calendar differs from the Gregorian calendar by:

• 8 years from January 1 to September 10/11

• 7 years from September 11/12 to December 31

In earlier centuries, the Era of Martyrs (Diocletian Era) was also widely used in Ethiopia and throughout Eastern Christianity. This system began in AD 284 and was closely connected to calculations of Easter cycles based on Metonic (19-year) and solar (28-year) cycles.

Cultural and Religious Significance

Rooted in ancient Christian and Coptic traditions, the Ethiopian calendar preserves a distinct historical identity. It remains central to religious observances, agricultural seasons, national celebrations, and daily life in Ethiopia, even as the Gregorian calendar is used for international affairs.

The Ethiopian calendar is a unique solar calendar consisting of 13 months—12 months of 30 days each and a 13th month of 5 days, or 6 days in a leap year. It runs approximately 7 to 8 years behind the Gregorian calendar and is closely connected to Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity. The Ethiopian New Year begins on September 11, or September 12 in a Gregorian leap year.

Key Features of the Ethiopian Calendar

13 Months:
The calendar includes twelve 30-day months, plus a short 13th month called Pagumē (from a Greek word meaning “additional”), which contains 5 days, or 6 days every four years.

Year Difference:
Because of a different calculation for the date of the Annunciation of Jesus Christ, the Ethiopian calendar is 7 years behind the Gregorian calendar from September through December, and 8 years behind from January through August.

New Year:
The first day of the year, 1 Mäskäräm, falls on September 11 (or September 12 during a Gregorian leap year).

Leap Year System:
Every four years, a sixth day is added to Pagumē without exception.

Usage:
Although the Gregorian calendar is used in Ethiopia for international matters such as banking and air travel, the Ethiopian calendar remains the primary system for everyday life, business, religious observances, and national holidays.

Months of the Ethiopian Calendar

• Mäskäräm (September/October)

• Teqemt (October/November)

• Hedar (November/December)

• Tahsas (December/January)

• Ter (January/February)

• Yakatit (February/March)

• Maggabit (March/April)

• Miyazya (April/May)

• Ginbot (May/June)

• Sene (June/July)

• Hamle (July/August)

• Nehasa (August/September)

• Pagumē (September)

Ethiopian Time System

In addition to its calendar, Ethiopia follows a distinctive 12-hour clock system that begins at 6:00 AM (sunrise) rather than at midnight. In this system, what is 7:00 AM in Western time is considered 1:00 in Ethiopian time, reflecting a day that starts with the rising of the sun rather than at 12:00 AM.

In the second episode of The Greater Jihad, Shahid Bolsen challenges the West’s core moral illusion—the idea that freedom is synonymous with the absence of moral structure. He contends that moral relativism does not produce liberation, but a subtler form of enslavement, and that the widespread despair within Western society stems from a culture that steadily erodes the value of the human soul. Referencing the Islamic concepts of the nafs and the fitrah, Bolsen argues that human beings are born with an inherent, dignified moral nature rather than as blank slates. The true “Greater Jihad,” he explains, is the lifelong struggle to bring the self into harmony with that innate moral truth. In this view, discipline is not oppression—it is the only route to authentic freedom, honor, and inner peace.

Engagement, Not Escape — The Greater Jihad

In this talk, Shahid Bolsen confronts one of the most widespread misunderstandings about Islam: the idea that it calls for spiritual retreat from the world. Instead, he argues that Islam is inherently worldly in the most grounded sense — a religion designed to guide every aspect of lived reality, from marriage and finances to friendship, work, and civic responsibility.

Drawing from prophetic guidance across everyday human interactions, Shahid makes a clear case: principles without practice are empty. A religion confined to the masjid, disconnected from daily conduct, offers little real value. Islam, he contends, was never meant to function only in sacred spaces — it is meant to structure character in the marketplace, the home, and the public square.

He then shifts to examine what life looks like without a practical moral framework. The result, he suggests, is drift — the slow build-up of resentment, hidden habits, fractured trust, and a fading sense of purpose. The loneliness epidemic, the explosion of the self-help industry, and the modern crisis of meaning are not isolated phenomena. They are symptoms of a deeper issue: the unchecked nafs operating without accountability or structure.

The episode closes with one of his most striking lines: “If Hamlet were a Muslim, it would not have been a tragedy.”

Iran Is Smarter Than You Think — Two aircraft carriers. More than 120 warplanes. The largest U.S. military deployment in the Middle East since 2003. At the very same time, negotiations in Geneva where both sides are signaling progress toward an agreement.