As-Subah Scholarly Research Paper: The Limits of Judicial Dissolution of Marriage (Faskh) and the Phenomenon of Sharīʿah Councils Overextending Their Authority | Mufti Zameelur Rahman

https://www.assubah.com/research/the-limits-of-judicial-dissolution-of-marriage-faskh-and-the-phenomenon-of-sharah-councils-overextending-their-authority

Presentation: Judicial Dissolution of Marriage (Faskh) & Shari'ah Court Malpractice | Mufti Zameelur Rahman

https://youtu.be/fcp9H-aEChE?si=XnACJMMTq2QmbXJc

"الخلافة الموعودة: نتيجة، وليست مقدمة"
من يفهم هذه الجملة مع أدلتها الشرعية وقوانينه السننية يدرك بطلان توجهات الجماعات التي تعكس القضية فتجعل الخلافة مقدمة ومبتدأ، وتُكره الواقع والأمة على مبدأ غير سنني ولا شرعي.

شيخنا نرجوا ردكم على هذا الكلام، هل هو باطل أم صحيح من وجه ؟

الكلام موهِم ومُشكِل، وهذا من فتنة المصطلحات والتراكيب العصرية، ما معنى أن الخلافة الموعودة مقدمة أو نتيجة؟ مقدمة لماذا ومتقدمة على ماذا؟ هي متقدمة في أمور ومتأخرة في أخرى. كذلك ما معنى نتيجة؟ ونتيجة لأي شيء؟ هي نتيجة للدعوة والإعداد والجـ...ـهاد، وهي منتجة للتمكين وتحكيم الشريعة وتوسيع رقعة الإسلام! فلا يوجد معيار ضابط للمقدمة والنتيجة.
ولا داعي لكل هذه الفذلكات؛ الخلافة واجب شرعي بالإجماع، وسبيل إقامة الخلافة الجـ...ـهاد، وسبيل الوصول للجـ...ـهاد الإعداد.
كل ما عدى ذلك من المصطلحات؛ إما أن تناقض هذا الأصل المقرر.. فلا قيمة لها، وإما أنها توافقه.. فلا حاجة لاستعمالها إلا من باب بيان معانيها أو مع من لا يفهم غيرها مع وجوب بيان المصطلحات الشرعية.
وهذه الفتنة جارية في كثير من المسائل: التدرج في تطبيق الشريعة، العدو القريب والبعيد، الجـ...ـهاد العالمي والقطري...
والله أعلم

ذكرني الأخ بأحد الشباب من قيادات بعض الجماعات، كان يروج على أتباعها نظرية (الخلافة وعد وليست هدفا)، باعتبار آية {وعد الله الذين آمنوا منكم وعملوا الصالحات ليستخلفنهم في الأرض...}، ودائمًا ما كان يطرح السؤال المشكل -على طريقة سقراط-: «هل الخلافة هدف أم وعد؟»، فإذا قال أنها وعد فقد وصل إلى بغيته (الدعوة دون السعي لها)، وإن قال أنها هدف.. باغته بالآية.
والحق أن الآية لا تدل على مطلوبه؛ بل العكس! ثم إن كون الخلاف هدفا لا ينافي كونها وعدا، هي هدف ووعد! كما أن الجنة هدف للمؤمن ووعد من الله يها... وهكذا كثير من المذاهب الباطلة المبتدعة تغلِّف باطلها بالاصطلاحات المتداخلة، وتحصر الآخر في ثنائيات غير محصورة في واقع الحال.

I've been following for a few months now the gradual emergence of strange news about "impending official UFO/alien disclosure" and I've been wondering what was it about.

Now, this last piece of news gives a clearer idea of the plan and objective behind such "disclosures":

https://x.com/i/status/2052620326274543835

“He was told that the major religions including Christianity were programs created by extraterrestrials to prevent us from destroying ourselves while they ran their experiments on us - and that they made us.”

So that seems to be their objective: a plan to "disprove" religions and to prepare for the dajjal's worship in the form of "UFO"/aliens.

P.S.: What happened to Darwinian evolution now? Oops.

The problem with the ‘Ulama of this age is that they proceed to understand/interpret the statements of classical scholarship from the lens of their own ideologies, sects & shuyookh (that they revere unquestioningly).

For example, some ‘Ulamah regard the categorical & agreed upon statements of the early A’immah on certain matters as no longer valid to do amal upon (in particular in Dar al-Harb) due to the changing times & natures of the people, thus applying the principle of: “Fatwa changes according to the time/era & place.” Thus they fall in to heresy. They twist/bend the Deen to fit secular ideologies.

Previously such “scholars” who came with explicit contraventions of the Deen would have been executed, flogged or imprisoned depending on what they had uttered/stated.

Al-Qāḍī Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī al-Ḥanafī (RA) said:

“No nation prior went astray except by following their forefathers & the fussaq ‘Ulama of their times, & casting the Kitaab & the Sunnah behind their backs.” (الأمد الأقصى).

Ḥakīm al-Ummah (r.a.) says:
A certain Mawlawī Ṣāḥib asked: “Ḥaḍrat! Is anger caused by arrogance?” He replied:

“No. Even the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would become angry. So was he (نعوذ بالله) arrogant? Sometimes ghayrah (protective honour and jealousy for the dīn) also becomes the cause of it. Religious zeal, weakness of temperament, and certain natural dispositions can all be causes of anger. In none of these is arrogance necessarily involved. Of course, if one exceeds the proper limits in the fulfilment of that anger, then it becomes blameworthy from the perspective of the Sharīʿah. As for the remaining natural matters, a person is excused in them.”

He further said:
“Sometimes anger also stems from weakness of temperament; arrogance is not always the reason. Just as a person may become angry with someone smaller or younger than himself, similarly he may also become angry with someone greater than himself — whereas arrogance is not possible in such a case. Therefore, that anger occurs due to the hurt caused by some form of disrespect. Of course, if one goes beyond the proper bounds in taking revenge during anger, then that is impermissible; and if it stems from arrogance, then it is indeed arrogance.”
(Al-Ifāḍāt al-Yawmiyyah, Vol. 1)

The usual rhetoric of those who neither understand taṣawwuf nor can differentiate between its parameters is often no different from the above misunderstandings. Since the so-called “War on Terror”, the clampdown on anger for the sake of Allah has become even more severe. It has been subtly woven into syllabuses, khuṭbahs, and carefully sanitised speeches so that even the worst atrocities committed against the Ummah are met with silence, emotional paralysis, and passivity.

Many now attempt to pathologise the emotions of believing men — branding every expression of ghayrah, honour, or outrage as “extremism”, “over-zealousness”, or emotional instability — whilst completely ignoring the natural human response that Allah Himself created within mankind to resist oppression and react to injustice.

The Prophet ﷺ compared the Ummah to one body: when one limb suffers, the rest of the body responds with fever and sleeplessness. Yet these imāms, organisations, and institutional voices seem to expect an Ummah that feels nothing, says nothing, and reacts to nothing. An Ummah stripped of its honour, courage, and protective jealousy for the dīn.

They expect the Ummah to be emotionally castrated — that even if a snake bites the body, the hand should not instinctively rush to the wound. What kind of logic is this? What kind of manhood, faith, or fitrah remains after such conditioning?

The Sharīʿah did not come to abolish human emotion. Rather, it came to discipline it, channel it, and place it within divine boundaries. There is a world of difference between uncontrolled rage for the nafs and principled anger for the sake of Allah.

An Ummah that no longer becomes angry at oppression, humiliation, massacres, and open warfare against Islām is not “balanced”; it is an Ummah that has been castrated.

https://x.com/i/status/2053012863032213956

"Muslim feminism is actually the most effective de-Islamization project in history, and it doesn’t even know it.
The mechanism is crystal clear

Classical Islam has a coherent internal logic. Fiqh, aqida, akhlaq they’re a system. Pull one thread and the whole architecture shifts. The why behind gender differentiation in Islamic law isn’t arbitrary patriarch. it’s connected to a specific anthropology, a specific theory of the nafs, a specific understanding of fitrah, and ultimately to tawhid itself. The rulings aren’t floating policy decisions you can swap out like furniture.

So when Muslim feminists go after inheritance law, guardianship, testimony, they think they’re renovating the house but in reality they’re removing the foundation.

Because once you establish that the methodology for deriving those rulings was wrong, that the Companions misunderstood, that the classical fuqaha were just products of their patriarchal culture, that we need a “gender-conscious hermeneutic” you’ve destroyed the epistemology.

You’ve told every Muslim that 1400 years of scholarly consensus is just vibes, and that your feelings about fairness, calibrated by a 21st century NGO education, are a valid override mechanism.

And once that’s established, once the principle is “we reread texts through the lens of contemporary moral intuitions” there is no limiting principle.

Why stop at gender? Riba? Hudud? The theological status of non-Muslims? Every ruling is now subject to the same “recontextualization.” You’ve handed secular liberalism a master key to the entire deen.

This is why Western governments and foundations fund this stuff enthusiastically. Not because they care about Muslim women, look at their silence on Gaza, on French hijab bans, on Uyghur women being sterilized.

They fund it because a Islam that validates itself through liberal frameworks is an Islam that can be perpetually managed, perpetually reformed, perpetually softened until it’s a aesthetic identity with no civilizational content. A Islam that produces good secular citizens and nothing else.

Muslim feminism is the Trojan horse and the feminists are the ones pulling it inside the gates sincerely, with full conviction, which makes it more dangerous, not less.

The Muslim world stopped producing frameworks and started importing them. Muslim feminism is just one symptom of that deeper collapse."

Source

https://x.com/i/status/2053759216951902629

The real definitive Islamic form of Tabligh isn't the voluntary "Tabligh Jama'ah", but the coercive forceful Amr bi-l-Ma'ruf backed by the Shar'i Nizam.

"Akhee but the Makkan phase!".

That was preliminary and preparatory to the objective of the final form of State and its institutions.

Thousands curses to whoever normalised nightclub/prostitute-like heeled shoes among women - as a part of the rewriting of the "covering with long clothes" into the whole "queen of Izlam" princessization and the self-hating Dubai-fascination dismissal of local traditional style to adopt foreign "gulf abayah" outfit styles (which defeats the whole objective of modesty).

Even asli kafir western women (unless they are prostitutes or going to a nightclub) never wear those types of hyper-sexualising and utterly immodest heeled shoes that Instagram-browsing "urbanites" self-proclaimed "hijabee queens" sport.

Imagine being brainwashed into thinking that having lost our beautiful traditional architecture to adopt some soulless cement skyscrapers monstrosities is "PrOgReSs" and "DeVeLoPmEnT".

Meanwhile, the said "PrOgReSs" and "DeVeLoPmEnT" - manifestation of the soulless man of the modern world and its materialist (un)"civilisation" 🤮

من أسباب تفكك الأُسر

تتغلف أغلب النساء المسلمات "المتدينة" في هذا الزمان في الظاهر بغلاف ديني ولكن في الباطن تنزع نحو المادية والنسوية من حيث لا تدري.
فلو فتحت كتابا واحدا تقرأ فيه عن هدي النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وفهمت وصاياه، لما وصل الحال الى ما وصل إليه.

فقد جاء في الأثر:
《روى مسلم بن عبيد أن أسماء بنت يزيد بن السكن الأشهلية أتت النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وهو بين أصحابه فقالت : بأبي وأمي أنت يــا رســول الله، أنا وافدة النساء إليك ، إن الله - عز وجل - بعثك إلى الرجال والنساء كافة، فآمـنــا بـك وبإلهك وإنا - معشر النساء - محصورات مقصورات، قواعد بيوتكم، ومقضى شهواتكم ، وحـامــلات أولادكم، وإنكم- معشر الرجال - فضلتم علينا بالجمع والجماعات، وعيادة المرضى، وشـهـود الجنائز، والحج بعد الحج، وأفضل من ذلك الجهاد في سبيل الله - عز وجل - وإن الـرجــل إذا خــرج حـاجـا أو معتمرا أو مجاهدا، حفظنا لكم أموالكم وغزلنا أثوابكم ، وربينا لكم أولادكم ، أفما نشـاركـكـم الأجر والثواب ؟!
فـالـتـفـت الـنـبـي إلى أصحابه بوجهه كله ثم قال : هل سمعتم مقالة امرأة قط أحسن من مساءلتها في أمر ديـنـهـا مــن هـذه ؟ فقالوا: يا رسول الله ما ظننا أن امرأة تهتدي إلى مثل هذا.
فالتفت النبي إليها فقال: افهمـي أيتها المرأة وأعلمي من خلفك من النساء أن حسن تبعل المرأة لزوجها(١) ، فانصرفت المرأة وهي تهلل》

(١)أي حسن مصاحبتها له، وطلبها مرضاته، واتـبـاعـهـا موافقته يعدل ذلك كله، واستقباله بأحسن وجه والتزين وغير ذلك...

فها هو رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يعدل بين النساء والرجال، فيضع كل افعال الرجال في مقابل حسن التبعل.
فهل تعي نساء اليوم هذا؟ وهل نصل الى مرحلة تفهم النساء هذه الامور فيرجع للبيت والأسرة مكانهما ومكانتهما وهيبتهما؟

صاحب المشكاة

So my theory of gilet being introduced by the British to Subcontinent and Afghanistan stands confirmed.

I've personally never liked gilets and I've always found it weir-looking and out of place, and if one looks at historical pictures from the wider Persianate Islamicate (from Balkans to China) Muslims were wearing long overcoats, not gilets.

(Only discussing the historical angles without fiqhi judgements here, as I'm not convinced either that classical scholars even indulged in encyclopedic researches about long-lost historical origins and meanings, but rather consideration is given to what is clearly identified/perceived as having an Islamic identity in one's specific era and 'urf, so the waistcoat having been by now integrated into Islamic cultures would remove the element of tashabbuh, regardless of its past historical origins).