Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Ebony Midget loves sucking dick and taking it from behind #ebony #ebonymidget #facefuck #backshots #midget #funsize #nsfw #nsfwtwt #bbc #bigdick

Midget XXX

12,501 subscribers

769,000 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

NSFW #ebony #ebonymidget #facefuck #backshots #midget #funsize #nsfw #nsfwtwt #bbc #bigdick

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

It’s Mother’s Day.. who wants to make me a mommy Top reply gets pm😋 #leaks #twerkin #twerk #ebony #latina #latinapyt #nsfwtwt #nsfw #lightskin #thick #ass #lightskinpyt #sellingcontent #thickpyt #ebony #ebonypyt #gothgirls #goth #twerking #bbc #backshots

Sensitive content

It’s Mother’s Day.. who wants to make me a mommy Top reply gets pm😋 #leaks #twerkin #twerk #ebony #latina #latinapyt #nsfwtwt #nsfw #lightskin #thick #ass #lightskinpyt #sellingcontent #thickpyt #ebony #ebonypyt #gothgirls #goth #twerking #bbc #backshots

Jadeli 🦋

5,320,806 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

snowbunny leak creampie squirt nsfw porn sex latina onlyfans cumslut cheating nudes mommy horny wankchat anime milf cumtribute ebony backshots teen thot interracial throatgoat college bbc onlyfans feet nsfwtwt love Bbw Asian riding squat Pawg cum phat ass cumslut bbc thot blowjob

snowbunny leak creampie squirt nsfw porn sex latina onlyfans cumslut cheating nudes mommy horny wankchat anime milf cumtribute ebony backshots teen thot interracial throatgoat college bbc onlyfans feet nsfwtwt love Bbw Asian riding squat Pawg cum phat ass cumslut bbc thot blowjob

Bad Bitches Daily

10,889 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

snowbunny leak creampie squirt nsfw porn sex latina onlyfans cumslut cheating nudes mommy horny wankchat anime milf cumtribute ebony backshots teen thot interracial throatgoat college bbc onlyfans feet nsfwtwt love Bbw Asian riding squat Pawg cum phat ass cumslut bbc thot blowjob

Sensitive content

snowbunny leak creampie squirt nsfw porn sex latina onlyfans cumslut cheating nudes mommy horny wankchat anime milf cumtribute ebony backshots teen thot interracial throatgoat college bbc onlyfans feet nsfwtwt love Bbw Asian riding squat Pawg cum phat ass cumslut bbc thot blowjob

Bad Bitches Daily

270,925 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

“Look how fun big my lips are😫😫, look how big and juicy and glossy my fknlips are” 😵‍💫🥜🧴🧈💦 #chudai #goontwt #nutty #babecock #Goon #gooner #bigbooty #goonette #pyt #yngoon #bbc #gooned #twerk #nsfw #ballbatter #drainyonut #DSL #dsllips #youngho #nutty #ebony #nut #nsfwtwt

Sensitive content

“Look how fun big my lips are😫😫, look how big and juicy and glossy my fknlips are” 😵‍💫🥜🧴🧈💦 #chudai #goontwt #nutty #babecock #Goon #gooner #bigbooty #goonette #pyt #yngoon #bbc #gooned #twerk #nsfw #ballbatter #drainyonut #DSL #dsllips #youngho #nutty #ebony #nut #nsfwtwt

baitttt🥜💋

20,668 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

I love my bf I really do…and I should stopped his friend from fucking me…but I haven’t had good dick in months 😩 and I just couldn’t take it anymore #bbc #cheating #cheatingkink #pawg #horny #nsfw #fantasycaptions #interracial

Sensitive content

I love my bf I really do…and I should stopped his friend from fucking me…but I haven’t had good dick in months 😩 and I just couldn’t take it anymore #bbc #cheating #cheatingkink #pawg #horny #nsfw #fantasycaptions #interracial

Taboo Hub ❤️‍🔥

142,525 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

🇮🇷 Iran is closing the Strait of Hormuz the dirty way. It started with 2 IRGC gunboats pulling up on a merchant tanker 20 nautical miles northeast of Oman, no radio warning, no challenge, just straight gunfire. Breach of maritime rules? The goal wasn't to sink the ship, but to send a crystal-clear message: try to sail through, and you're a target. That's Phase 1, intimidation. Behind it sits Iran's real asymmetric playbook: - Hundreds of fast-attack boats in swarms to overwhelm U.S. defenses, - thousands of naval mines, - mobile coastal anti-ship missiles using "shoot-and-scoot" from the mountains, - and quiet Ghadir-class midget subs lurking in shallow waters for torpedo ambushes. Iran knows it can't win a fair fight against the U.S. Navy. So it's turning the world's most vital oil chokepoint into a dangerous, unpredictable kill zone instead. Source: AI Telly YT

🇮🇷 Iran is closing the Strait of Hormuz the dirty way. It started with 2 IRGC gunboats pulling up on a merchant tanker 20 nautical miles northeast of Oman, no radio warning, no challenge, just straight gunfire. Breach of maritime rules? The goal wasn't to sink the ship, but to send a crystal-clear message: try to sail through, and you're a target. That's Phase 1, intimidation. Behind it sits Iran's real asymmetric playbook: - Hundreds of fast-attack boats in swarms to overwhelm U.S. defenses, - thousands of naval mines, - mobile coastal anti-ship missiles using "shoot-and-scoot" from the mountains, - and quiet Ghadir-class midget subs lurking in shallow waters for torpedo ambushes. Iran knows it can't win a fair fight against the U.S. Navy. So it's turning the world's most vital oil chokepoint into a dangerous, unpredictable kill zone instead. Source: AI Telly YT

Mario Nawfal

1,870,676 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Jay-Z talks about writing “Still Dre”. Loves creative challenges (“taking one of your arms and tying it behind your back”). For Dre, challenge was to put himself in Dre’s shoes. Making the “2001” album 7 years after “The Chronic”. Backstory of how Jay did the song is legendary. There was one great piano beat that Dre couldn’t write the lyrics for. He sent the beat to Jay-Z. In less than an hour, Jay-Z wrote the song and rapped over the beat — pretending to be both Dre and Snoop (in their respective voices) — and sent it back. Basically exact same “Still D.R.E.” they would record (time between Dre’s first two albums was 7 years; 1992 to 1999, had to remind ‘em)! Dre heard it and said “That’s it. That’s it right there. This is a single.” Snoop said many years later “He wrote Dre’s shit and my shit. And it was flawless. Jay-Z is a great writer to begin with for himself, so imagine him striking it for someone he truly loves and appreciates. He loves Dr. Dre and that’s what his pen showed you.” *** First interview from NYT’s recent songwriter series: The Shop chat here:

Jay-Z talks about writing “Still Dre”. Loves creative challenges (“taking one of your arms and tying it behind your back”). For Dre, challenge was to put himself in Dre’s shoes. Making the “2001” album 7 years after “The Chronic”. Backstory of how Jay did the song is legendary. There was one great piano beat that Dre couldn’t write the lyrics for. He sent the beat to Jay-Z. In less than an hour, Jay-Z wrote the song and rapped over the beat — pretending to be both Dre and Snoop (in their respective voices) — and sent it back. Basically exact same “Still D.R.E.” they would record (time between Dre’s first two albums was 7 years; 1992 to 1999, had to remind ‘em)! Dre heard it and said “That’s it. That’s it right there. This is a single.” Snoop said many years later “He wrote Dre’s shit and my shit. And it was flawless. Jay-Z is a great writer to begin with for himself, so imagine him striking it for someone he truly loves and appreciates. He loves Dr. Dre and that’s what his pen showed you.” *** First interview from NYT’s recent songwriter series: The Shop chat here:

Trung Phan

110,020 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump reveals why MAGA is behind him on Iran The SAME Venezuela "forever war" fear-mongering FAILED, and now look! "What can I say? MAGA LOVE the fact that they're not going to have somebody with a nuclear bomb over their head!" 🇺🇸 "MAGA loves the fact, like in Venezuela, everyone said, 'oh, this is going to be very unpopular.' Well, we're now taking in hundreds of millions of barrels of oil from Venezuela!" "And Venezuela is doing better than they've ever done. We had 100 million barrels of oil in the first week." "We more than paid for the entire attack by fact. We made it probably four or five times more than the cost of that attack. But it showed the military power!"

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump reveals why MAGA is behind him on Iran The SAME Venezuela "forever war" fear-mongering FAILED, and now look! "What can I say? MAGA LOVE the fact that they're not going to have somebody with a nuclear bomb over their head!" 🇺🇸 "MAGA loves the fact, like in Venezuela, everyone said, 'oh, this is going to be very unpopular.' Well, we're now taking in hundreds of millions of barrels of oil from Venezuela!" "And Venezuela is doing better than they've ever done. We had 100 million barrels of oil in the first week." "We more than paid for the entire attack by fact. We made it probably four or five times more than the cost of that attack. But it showed the military power!"

Eric Daugherty

30,623 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

🐥->🦊: what i'm most thankful for is that you always hung out with me. even though i'm the older one, he was the one who looked after me, and seeing that made me really grateful. whenever i see him, i feel like i get such a positive influence from him. even now every time i see him, i just feel thankful again. 🦊->🐥: the one who quietly looked after me the most behind the scenes was yongbokie. he'd always take care of me in small, subtle ways, little gestures here and there, i really appreciated that. he also gave me lots of confidence. back when we'd just debuted, there was this bag from bottega veneta i really wanted & it was really expensive, but he gave it to me for my birthday because he noticed i wanted it. little things like this, he'd always been so thoughtful in quiet ways, taking care of me & i truly am grateful for it. our jeonglix just loves each other so much 😭🤍

🐥->🦊: what i'm most thankful for is that you always hung out with me. even though i'm the older one, he was the one who looked after me, and seeing that made me really grateful. whenever i see him, i feel like i get such a positive influence from him. even now every time i see him, i just feel thankful again. 🦊->🐥: the one who quietly looked after me the most behind the scenes was yongbokie. he'd always take care of me in small, subtle ways, little gestures here and there, i really appreciated that. he also gave me lots of confidence. back when we'd just debuted, there was this bag from bottega veneta i really wanted & it was really expensive, but he gave it to me for my birthday because he noticed i wanted it. little things like this, he'd always been so thoughtful in quiet ways, taking care of me & i truly am grateful for it. our jeonglix just loves each other so much 😭🤍

daily innie

14,069 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

This is meant to be the 'hero' of the America Only crowd? Seriously? This is supposedly the intellectual who could debate the likes of Shapiro without breaking a sweat? "We have reached the pinnacle of fake outrage" according to Nick. And what does he follow that with? A stream of vacuous verbal diarrhoea the left have been spewing for two years, without a single ounce of original thought behind it. Yet Nick wants to lecture anyone about the "pinnacle of fake outrage"? Really?? A "genocide".. People supposedly being shot in the back of the head, children included. Claims for which there is absolutely ZERO evidence. The same applies to the so called starvation. And yet it all sounds strangely familiar does it not?? Why might that be? Remember the Israeli hostages who were being moved, and when Hamas realised the IDF were closing in they killed them by shooting them "IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD". Remember that? Remember when the first hostages were released and barely resembled functioning human beings because they were nothing but skin and bone. Remember that? The starvation? What Nick is doing is exactly what the left have been doing for two years. Invert reality. Take what happened to Israeli hostages and paste it onto the "Palestinians" so that the "genocide" narrative can be pushed. Seriously I have seen more coherent arguments from the likes of Dave Smith and that's really saying something. And let us not forget that this midget is ranting about a "genocide" after weeks of an ongoing ceasefire. He is so intellectually lazy and simply erases current reality from his mind entirely. This.. THIS is the great leader of the 'America Only' movement??.. Jesus wept....

This is meant to be the 'hero' of the America Only crowd? Seriously? This is supposedly the intellectual who could debate the likes of Shapiro without breaking a sweat? "We have reached the pinnacle of fake outrage" according to Nick. And what does he follow that with? A stream of vacuous verbal diarrhoea the left have been spewing for two years, without a single ounce of original thought behind it. Yet Nick wants to lecture anyone about the "pinnacle of fake outrage"? Really?? A "genocide".. People supposedly being shot in the back of the head, children included. Claims for which there is absolutely ZERO evidence. The same applies to the so called starvation. And yet it all sounds strangely familiar does it not?? Why might that be? Remember the Israeli hostages who were being moved, and when Hamas realised the IDF were closing in they killed them by shooting them "IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD". Remember that? Remember when the first hostages were released and barely resembled functioning human beings because they were nothing but skin and bone. Remember that? The starvation? What Nick is doing is exactly what the left have been doing for two years. Invert reality. Take what happened to Israeli hostages and paste it onto the "Palestinians" so that the "genocide" narrative can be pushed. Seriously I have seen more coherent arguments from the likes of Dave Smith and that's really saying something. And let us not forget that this midget is ranting about a "genocide" after weeks of an ongoing ceasefire. He is so intellectually lazy and simply erases current reality from his mind entirely. This.. THIS is the great leader of the 'America Only' movement??.. Jesus wept....

𝔸η𝐓

42,844 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

They said no one messes with her girl.! The bright lights of the Gainbridge Fieldhouse were buzzing during the Indiana Fever vs. Connecticut Sun game. Caitlin Clark was doing what she does—cooking the defense, slicing through lanes, dropping dimes like it was nothing. But the Sun weren’t having it. Jacy Sheldon had been physical all night, and then it escalated: a hard rake across the face, followed by Marina Mabrey shoving Caitlin hard from behind, sending her stumbling. The crowd erupted. Refs blew the whistle, but no ejection for the cheap shots. Caitlin got up frustrated, the physicality clearly building for years with the league’s biggest star drawing extra hands. That’s when Sophie Cunningham flipped the switch. Sophie locked eyes on the situation, stepped right in, and became the enforcer everyone’s talking about. As play continued, she went straight for Sheldon—wrapping her up in a bear hug and taking her straight to the floor with zero hesitation. Hair flying, intensity maxed out. “I got us” energy in full effect. Chaos exploded. Players from both sides jumped in, pushing and yelling in a full-on melee. Whistles blared, techs and flagrants flew. Sophie and Sheldon both got ejected, but the message was sent loud and clear: you don’t keep targeting Caitlin without consequences. After the dust settled, Sophie stood tall—fired up but composed—while the Fever regrouped. Coach was heated on the sideline about the lack of protection for their star. Caitlin got checked on by her teammates, and the squad kept that “we ride together” vibe. Moral of the story? Don’t start none, won’t be none—especially not with Caitlin Clark. Sophie proved she’s the protector the Fever needed, turning WNBA physicality into viral loyalty. Peace on the court… until you touch her girl. 😤🏀 Who else loves seeing teammates have each other’s backs like this? Drop your favorite WNBA enforcer moments below. 🔥 #CaitlinClark #SophieCunningham #Fever #WNBA

They said no one messes with her girl.! The bright lights of the Gainbridge Fieldhouse were buzzing during the Indiana Fever vs. Connecticut Sun game. Caitlin Clark was doing what she does—cooking the defense, slicing through lanes, dropping dimes like it was nothing. But the Sun weren’t having it. Jacy Sheldon had been physical all night, and then it escalated: a hard rake across the face, followed by Marina Mabrey shoving Caitlin hard from behind, sending her stumbling. The crowd erupted. Refs blew the whistle, but no ejection for the cheap shots. Caitlin got up frustrated, the physicality clearly building for years with the league’s biggest star drawing extra hands. That’s when Sophie Cunningham flipped the switch. Sophie locked eyes on the situation, stepped right in, and became the enforcer everyone’s talking about. As play continued, she went straight for Sheldon—wrapping her up in a bear hug and taking her straight to the floor with zero hesitation. Hair flying, intensity maxed out. “I got us” energy in full effect. Chaos exploded. Players from both sides jumped in, pushing and yelling in a full-on melee. Whistles blared, techs and flagrants flew. Sophie and Sheldon both got ejected, but the message was sent loud and clear: you don’t keep targeting Caitlin without consequences. After the dust settled, Sophie stood tall—fired up but composed—while the Fever regrouped. Coach was heated on the sideline about the lack of protection for their star. Caitlin got checked on by her teammates, and the squad kept that “we ride together” vibe. Moral of the story? Don’t start none, won’t be none—especially not with Caitlin Clark. Sophie proved she’s the protector the Fever needed, turning WNBA physicality into viral loyalty. Peace on the court… until you touch her girl. 😤🏀 Who else loves seeing teammates have each other’s backs like this? Drop your favorite WNBA enforcer moments below. 🔥 #CaitlinClark #SophieCunningham #Fever #WNBA

R͓̽Y͓̽a͓̽n͓̽C͓̽e͓̽y͓̽

74,012 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

How a💋porn star💋taught us we need Bitcoin... In 1975, mattress actress Andrea True was hired to film some ads in Jamaica but - to her horror - she was banned from taking her payment home to the US, as Jamaica had imposed capital controls. Faced with having to leave the money behind, she instead splurged it on making a Jamaican studio demo of a song she'd been working on. "More, More, More" made her a global star (of disco, not mattresses). The moral of this story is that we all need either: a) A hit song about making porn films, or b) Bitcoin In my recent BBC interview, I warned that gold is pretty useless for moving your money out of your country if the government restricts capital flight. How are you going to get a suitcase of gold across the border? In that situation, you need Bitcoin instead. Buy it in your home country, fly abroad, convert it into local currency online and withdraw from a bank. Done. Think it's not a plausible risk? Well, Ireland, Portugal and Spain still had capital controls as recently as the 1990s. And most major countries restricted money movements in the 70s, (y'know, that decade economists are always comparing the 2020s to). As I've stressed before, Bitcoin is currently out of fashion because people are scared (hence the rush to gold) but they're not scared enough for Bitcoin, because governments aren't restricting currency movements. If we get even a sniff of that happening, Bitcoin could rally like nothing we've seen before. But things aren't that desperate yet.

How a💋porn star💋taught us we need Bitcoin... In 1975, mattress actress Andrea True was hired to film some ads in Jamaica but - to her horror - she was banned from taking her payment home to the US, as Jamaica had imposed capital controls. Faced with having to leave the money behind, she instead splurged it on making a Jamaican studio demo of a song she'd been working on. "More, More, More" made her a global star (of disco, not mattresses). The moral of this story is that we all need either: a) A hit song about making porn films, or b) Bitcoin In my recent BBC interview, I warned that gold is pretty useless for moving your money out of your country if the government restricts capital flight. How are you going to get a suitcase of gold across the border? In that situation, you need Bitcoin instead. Buy it in your home country, fly abroad, convert it into local currency online and withdraw from a bank. Done. Think it's not a plausible risk? Well, Ireland, Portugal and Spain still had capital controls as recently as the 1990s. And most major countries restricted money movements in the 70s, (y'know, that decade economists are always comparing the 2020s to). As I've stressed before, Bitcoin is currently out of fashion because people are scared (hence the rush to gold) but they're not scared enough for Bitcoin, because governments aren't restricting currency movements. If we get even a sniff of that happening, Bitcoin could rally like nothing we've seen before. But things aren't that desperate yet.

Glen Goodman

59,219 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

I’m here only because I have a visceral reaction to misinformation….@jessmachadoshow Apparently there’s some confusion as to why people are pissed. People aren’t pissed because J7 trashed Baker on your show. People aren’t pissed because you said you don’t like Baker. People aren’t pissed because you made jokes about Baker sticking his dick into a fleshlight. People are pissed about how you responded to Baker’s 4Loco live where he told the real story behind the sex toy gift package. Baker explained that he and J7 had a sexting flirtation for a couple weeks but after he started seeing some red flags in her behavior he cut things off. J7 doesn’t handle rejection very well so she went off the rails and started blowing up his phone constantly. She even tracked down his danish phone number after he had blocked her on everything else. It was then that she sent him that package of sex toys. That is scary and weird as fuck. We all know damn well that if a woman had cut off contact and blocked a man who wouldn’t leave her alone and that man then sent her a box of sex toys we all would be horrified. Baker also talked about the abuse he went through with his ex-wife and it was fucking heartbreaking. In response to alla this you did not say something like “Fuck man I’m sorry. I didn’t know the whole story so while I still think you’re an asshole I apologize for making fun of the sex toy stuff.” Instead you doubled down by saying that he “preys on women”, he has “severe issues with women”, he “played the victim”, implied that he is lying about all of this because you’ve “seen all of the text messages” and you “know things that we don’t”. That is why people are pissed. And yes, you are taking way more heat from Baker and everyone else than J7 is but that’s because we all agree that J7 is crazy and you’re not crazy so we expect more from you than we do from the crazy lady. Also, nobody thought that you were talking about Baker being a predator when you were actually talking about J7 and Proctor being predators. That’s why none of us were posting that clip in an effort to try prove that you called Baker a predator. It seems that a couple of the bunnies just found you saying the word “predator” on a livestream and assumed that we’re all idiots who lack basic listening comprehension skills. Then you took it and ran with it even tho that explanation made absolutely no sense. And yes, I fucking hate alla this. There are only like 8 people who are thrilled that this whole shitshow happened. The rest of us are pissed, disappointed, and sick about it.

I’m here only because I have a visceral reaction to misinformation….@jessmachadoshow Apparently there’s some confusion as to why people are pissed. People aren’t pissed because J7 trashed Baker on your show. People aren’t pissed because you said you don’t like Baker. People aren’t pissed because you made jokes about Baker sticking his dick into a fleshlight. People are pissed about how you responded to Baker’s 4Loco live where he told the real story behind the sex toy gift package. Baker explained that he and J7 had a sexting flirtation for a couple weeks but after he started seeing some red flags in her behavior he cut things off. J7 doesn’t handle rejection very well so she went off the rails and started blowing up his phone constantly. She even tracked down his danish phone number after he had blocked her on everything else. It was then that she sent him that package of sex toys. That is scary and weird as fuck. We all know damn well that if a woman had cut off contact and blocked a man who wouldn’t leave her alone and that man then sent her a box of sex toys we all would be horrified. Baker also talked about the abuse he went through with his ex-wife and it was fucking heartbreaking. In response to alla this you did not say something like “Fuck man I’m sorry. I didn’t know the whole story so while I still think you’re an asshole I apologize for making fun of the sex toy stuff.” Instead you doubled down by saying that he “preys on women”, he has “severe issues with women”, he “played the victim”, implied that he is lying about all of this because you’ve “seen all of the text messages” and you “know things that we don’t”. That is why people are pissed. And yes, you are taking way more heat from Baker and everyone else than J7 is but that’s because we all agree that J7 is crazy and you’re not crazy so we expect more from you than we do from the crazy lady. Also, nobody thought that you were talking about Baker being a predator when you were actually talking about J7 and Proctor being predators. That’s why none of us were posting that clip in an effort to try prove that you called Baker a predator. It seems that a couple of the bunnies just found you saying the word “predator” on a livestream and assumed that we’re all idiots who lack basic listening comprehension skills. Then you took it and ran with it even tho that explanation made absolutely no sense. And yes, I fucking hate alla this. There are only like 8 people who are thrilled that this whole shitshow happened. The rest of us are pissed, disappointed, and sick about it.

Alyssa M.

20,130 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The Cosmological Argument Without the Kalami Baggage The reason I know Hijab hasn't carefully read Ibn Taymiyya on these questions is that he says something like this without seeming to notice what it actually does to the route he's taking. If he really sat with those discussions, the point he's making in this clip would not look like support for his strategy at all. He says he does not know anyone who accepts an infinite regress of causes, and that's true. But once that much is already out the way, this whole shift to an Avicennan framework with all the baggage it comes with should already start looking a lot less appealing. Let me explain why. If an infinite regress of causes is impossible, then all you need in order to reach the conclusion Hijab wants to reach is just one thing that came into being after not existing at all. All you need is one instance of temporal origination. Your own coming into existence and the things happening right in front of you give you exactly that. And unless you're now going to retreat from even this to satisfy the skeptic, you already have all you need. Not just from what's all around you, but from within your very self. You have, in your very own existence, something that came into being after not existing, and therefore requires a cause that brought it into being, a self-sufficient cause whose existence is not itself from something else. And regardless of whether the sequence of temporally originated things extends infinitely into the past or not, it still follows that the whole series cannot sufficiently explain the temporally originated thing in question, because if an infinite regress of causes is impossible, then the series cannot just hang there without terminating in a self-sufficient cause. So once he's already granted that much, the conclusion he's after is already right there in substance. But if that's the case, why abandon this clearly more straightforward route in favor of Ibn Sina's? Why leave behind the immediate and obvious reality of temporal origination and retreat into a highly abstract metaphysical framework with all the theological baggage it comes with? Part of the answer is that there's a significant amount of kalami pressure still doing work in the background, whether he sees it clearly or not. He's still being pulled by a picture in which that one temporally originated thing right in front of him somehow does not yet feel enough, and in which there's still a need to rule out a beginningless past of any kind at all before the argument is secure. And since fighting through this kalami route comes with its own heavy costs, Ibn Sina's more abstract starting point becomes appealing precisely because it seems to float above that whole battlefield entirely. That whole picture doesn't just come from nowhere. It belongs to a framework shaped by Mu'tazili-Ash'ari atomist commitments and by the Avicennan alternative that presents itself as the way out. But that's precisely the false dichotomy that Ibn Taymiyya's engagement with these schools exposes. And that's why I said at the start that Hijab clearly has not absorbed those discussions. I say this because nobody exposes how this whole dilemma gets manufactured in the first place more clearly than Ibn Taymiyya. Once you follow both of these approaches through to where they actually lead, the picture roughly looks like this: On the kalami side, the world is temporally originated, but there's no temporal cause and no temporally specifying reason for why it began when it did rather than before or after. On the Avicennan side, the idea of a temporally originated world without a temporally specifying reason for why it began at one moment rather than another is rejected, and what that drives them to is an eternal world flowing necessarily from a timeless source. The first side is left saying that the world did not exist and then suddenly came into being, when absolutely nothing changed in the first "non-existence" state to bring the "existence" state about. No new act, no new cause, no new specification of any kind. Just non-existence, and then existence, with nothing in between that accounts for the difference. And this isn't just the ordinary sense of "why this moment rather than another" as if time was already flowing in the background and there was succession of some sort. The issue is that there's no succession there at all, and yet somehow a first occurrence appears without anything new accounting for it. The second side, on the other hand, tries to avoid that mess by denying the beginning altogether. But then it runs into a worse problem, because if the world flows necessarily from an eternally sufficient cause, then by right, there shouldn't be temporally originated things happening right in front of us at all. If the sufficient cause is eternally what it is and its effect follows necessarily, then nothing genuinely new should ever come to be. And yet things do come to be and events do occur right before our eyes. So that picture ends up in something far worse than the kalami one, because it leaves the very occurrences we're constantly witnessing impossible to account for in the first place. This choice between denying any kind of beginningless past on one side, or accepting an eternal emanation of the world from a timeless source on the other, only starts looking meaningful once certain premises about God have already been quietly accepted in the background. Brother Hijab is either knowingly or unknowingly operating within a system that traps you between these two options. Part of what Ibn Taymiyya's critiques are meant to show is that this whole "menu" is already the product of framework-level concessions that didn't need to be made in the first place. The whole force of Ibn Sina's move depends on those prior concessions. If you deny real volitional attributes and deny that God's willing and acting are themselves genuinely real and successive (as opposed to being reduced to mere effects within creation), then of course you're going to be left staring at the world's coming into existence and finding nothing in God that accounts for it. And that's exactly the pressure Ibn Sina exploits. He isn't exposing some universal difficulty that falls equally on every conception of God. He's taking advantage of a problem that only becomes a problem once those earlier denials are already in place. From our side, that whole pressure is manufactured by a prior departure from what revelation teaches plainly and what a sound fitrah and uncorrupted reason recognize naturally about God. He acts when He wills. He does what He wills. One thing genuinely follows another by His act and decisive will. He truly answers when called upon. He creates, commands, speaks, loves, is pleased, is angered, and does what He wills when He wills. This is not some later philosophical patchwork brought in to rescue a weak position. It's the direct meaning of what was revealed to the prophets (peace be upon them) and the most natural and intelligible understanding of the Creator in the first place. The whole metaphysical mess we've been walking through only begins after that is set aside and people start trying to reconstruct coherence in its absence. The dilemma that pushes Hijab toward Ibn Sina simply does not arise for those who never made that initial concession. But even if all of that is set aside and Ibn Sina is taken on his own terms, his approach doesn't solve this manufactured problem anyway. It makes it worse. If the world proceeds from an eternally complete cause that necessarily produces its effect without interval or delay, the very occurrence of events within the world becomes unintelligible. If the sufficient cause is eternally what it is and its effect follows necessarily from it, then why are new things happening at all? Why is anything coming to be? Why is there succession? Either everything that proceeds from that cause should always have been exactly as it is, in which case the occurrence of new events becomes impossible to make sense of, or events are somehow happening without anything genuinely bringing them into being, which is even worse. Hijab's own position sits uncomfortably between both of these frameworks without actually being grounded in either of them. On the kalami side, the denial of real volitional attributes is driven by the famous dalil al-a'rad that Ash'aris inherited from the Mu'tazila. A flawed argument whose anti-past-infinitude burden Hijab himself seems uneasy about defending, and one that even scholars within the kalami tradition have never fully settled among themselves. On the Avicennan side, the denial of volitional attributes is tied to the composition argument, which is even more obviously flawed than the first, and which Hijab himself effectively rejects the moment he wants to affirm real attributes of God elsewhere. So he's neither willing to fully own the kalami grounds nor willing to accept the Avicennan ones, and yet he remains caught between both frameworks in a way that has him selectively borrowing loaded conclusions from each while rejecting the very premises that would at least give either position a fighting chance at internal coherence. As for the position that actually makes sense, the one that does not require any of this maneuvering and doesn't come loaded with any of these burdens, that's the one he keeps stepping around. He already has temporal origination staring him right in the face, not just in the world around him but in his very own existence. And once he grants the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes, that's already all he needs to arrive at the conclusion he's after. And yet instead of taking the direct route that's right there in front of him, he moves into inherited frameworks with all the speculative premises and theological costs that come with them, and then has to spend his time patching around the problems those frameworks generate. That's what happens when you reach for the most sophisticated-looking formulation without a sufficiently clear view of what drove people into those frameworks to begin with, and without a clear understanding of what they had to give up along the way to stay in them.

The Cosmological Argument Without the Kalami Baggage The reason I know Hijab hasn't carefully read Ibn Taymiyya on these questions is that he says something like this without seeming to notice what it actually does to the route he's taking. If he really sat with those discussions, the point he's making in this clip would not look like support for his strategy at all. He says he does not know anyone who accepts an infinite regress of causes, and that's true. But once that much is already out the way, this whole shift to an Avicennan framework with all the baggage it comes with should already start looking a lot less appealing. Let me explain why. If an infinite regress of causes is impossible, then all you need in order to reach the conclusion Hijab wants to reach is just one thing that came into being after not existing at all. All you need is one instance of temporal origination. Your own coming into existence and the things happening right in front of you give you exactly that. And unless you're now going to retreat from even this to satisfy the skeptic, you already have all you need. Not just from what's all around you, but from within your very self. You have, in your very own existence, something that came into being after not existing, and therefore requires a cause that brought it into being, a self-sufficient cause whose existence is not itself from something else. And regardless of whether the sequence of temporally originated things extends infinitely into the past or not, it still follows that the whole series cannot sufficiently explain the temporally originated thing in question, because if an infinite regress of causes is impossible, then the series cannot just hang there without terminating in a self-sufficient cause. So once he's already granted that much, the conclusion he's after is already right there in substance. But if that's the case, why abandon this clearly more straightforward route in favor of Ibn Sina's? Why leave behind the immediate and obvious reality of temporal origination and retreat into a highly abstract metaphysical framework with all the theological baggage it comes with? Part of the answer is that there's a significant amount of kalami pressure still doing work in the background, whether he sees it clearly or not. He's still being pulled by a picture in which that one temporally originated thing right in front of him somehow does not yet feel enough, and in which there's still a need to rule out a beginningless past of any kind at all before the argument is secure. And since fighting through this kalami route comes with its own heavy costs, Ibn Sina's more abstract starting point becomes appealing precisely because it seems to float above that whole battlefield entirely. That whole picture doesn't just come from nowhere. It belongs to a framework shaped by Mu'tazili-Ash'ari atomist commitments and by the Avicennan alternative that presents itself as the way out. But that's precisely the false dichotomy that Ibn Taymiyya's engagement with these schools exposes. And that's why I said at the start that Hijab clearly has not absorbed those discussions. I say this because nobody exposes how this whole dilemma gets manufactured in the first place more clearly than Ibn Taymiyya. Once you follow both of these approaches through to where they actually lead, the picture roughly looks like this: On the kalami side, the world is temporally originated, but there's no temporal cause and no temporally specifying reason for why it began when it did rather than before or after. On the Avicennan side, the idea of a temporally originated world without a temporally specifying reason for why it began at one moment rather than another is rejected, and what that drives them to is an eternal world flowing necessarily from a timeless source. The first side is left saying that the world did not exist and then suddenly came into being, when absolutely nothing changed in the first "non-existence" state to bring the "existence" state about. No new act, no new cause, no new specification of any kind. Just non-existence, and then existence, with nothing in between that accounts for the difference. And this isn't just the ordinary sense of "why this moment rather than another" as if time was already flowing in the background and there was succession of some sort. The issue is that there's no succession there at all, and yet somehow a first occurrence appears without anything new accounting for it. The second side, on the other hand, tries to avoid that mess by denying the beginning altogether. But then it runs into a worse problem, because if the world flows necessarily from an eternally sufficient cause, then by right, there shouldn't be temporally originated things happening right in front of us at all. If the sufficient cause is eternally what it is and its effect follows necessarily, then nothing genuinely new should ever come to be. And yet things do come to be and events do occur right before our eyes. So that picture ends up in something far worse than the kalami one, because it leaves the very occurrences we're constantly witnessing impossible to account for in the first place. This choice between denying any kind of beginningless past on one side, or accepting an eternal emanation of the world from a timeless source on the other, only starts looking meaningful once certain premises about God have already been quietly accepted in the background. Brother Hijab is either knowingly or unknowingly operating within a system that traps you between these two options. Part of what Ibn Taymiyya's critiques are meant to show is that this whole "menu" is already the product of framework-level concessions that didn't need to be made in the first place. The whole force of Ibn Sina's move depends on those prior concessions. If you deny real volitional attributes and deny that God's willing and acting are themselves genuinely real and successive (as opposed to being reduced to mere effects within creation), then of course you're going to be left staring at the world's coming into existence and finding nothing in God that accounts for it. And that's exactly the pressure Ibn Sina exploits. He isn't exposing some universal difficulty that falls equally on every conception of God. He's taking advantage of a problem that only becomes a problem once those earlier denials are already in place. From our side, that whole pressure is manufactured by a prior departure from what revelation teaches plainly and what a sound fitrah and uncorrupted reason recognize naturally about God. He acts when He wills. He does what He wills. One thing genuinely follows another by His act and decisive will. He truly answers when called upon. He creates, commands, speaks, loves, is pleased, is angered, and does what He wills when He wills. This is not some later philosophical patchwork brought in to rescue a weak position. It's the direct meaning of what was revealed to the prophets (peace be upon them) and the most natural and intelligible understanding of the Creator in the first place. The whole metaphysical mess we've been walking through only begins after that is set aside and people start trying to reconstruct coherence in its absence. The dilemma that pushes Hijab toward Ibn Sina simply does not arise for those who never made that initial concession. But even if all of that is set aside and Ibn Sina is taken on his own terms, his approach doesn't solve this manufactured problem anyway. It makes it worse. If the world proceeds from an eternally complete cause that necessarily produces its effect without interval or delay, the very occurrence of events within the world becomes unintelligible. If the sufficient cause is eternally what it is and its effect follows necessarily from it, then why are new things happening at all? Why is anything coming to be? Why is there succession? Either everything that proceeds from that cause should always have been exactly as it is, in which case the occurrence of new events becomes impossible to make sense of, or events are somehow happening without anything genuinely bringing them into being, which is even worse. Hijab's own position sits uncomfortably between both of these frameworks without actually being grounded in either of them. On the kalami side, the denial of real volitional attributes is driven by the famous dalil al-a'rad that Ash'aris inherited from the Mu'tazila. A flawed argument whose anti-past-infinitude burden Hijab himself seems uneasy about defending, and one that even scholars within the kalami tradition have never fully settled among themselves. On the Avicennan side, the denial of volitional attributes is tied to the composition argument, which is even more obviously flawed than the first, and which Hijab himself effectively rejects the moment he wants to affirm real attributes of God elsewhere. So he's neither willing to fully own the kalami grounds nor willing to accept the Avicennan ones, and yet he remains caught between both frameworks in a way that has him selectively borrowing loaded conclusions from each while rejecting the very premises that would at least give either position a fighting chance at internal coherence. As for the position that actually makes sense, the one that does not require any of this maneuvering and doesn't come loaded with any of these burdens, that's the one he keeps stepping around. He already has temporal origination staring him right in the face, not just in the world around him but in his very own existence. And once he grants the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes, that's already all he needs to arrive at the conclusion he's after. And yet instead of taking the direct route that's right there in front of him, he moves into inherited frameworks with all the speculative premises and theological costs that come with them, and then has to spend his time patching around the problems those frameworks generate. That's what happens when you reach for the most sophisticated-looking formulation without a sufficiently clear view of what drove people into those frameworks to begin with, and without a clear understanding of what they had to give up along the way to stay in them.

Abdul Rahman (TAP)

20,397 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce