And to every single sad excuse for a man who continues to promote this filth within our communities, I genuinely hope you suffer the consequences of this.

To those saying: “B-b-but akhiiii, we can just change the education system for women!!! The issue isn’t women learning!!!”…

Let me ask you… If there wasn’t the aspect of attaining total financial independence, or the social aspect of “prestige”, both of which are ENGRAINED in the education system FROM ITS INCEPTION and the ENTIRE reason people are putting their daughters into it in the first place…

Why would a woman EVEN WANT to go through such a system at that point? Almost NONE of the information you take in those institutions actually apply to real life competence. ALL OF IT is for the workforce. Why would a woman spend YEARS of her life studying things that she will never use? You GENUINELY believe that WOMEN want to go to school because they have this insatiable thirst for knowledge? 💀 The vast majority of MEN wouldn’t care to learn anything that they didn’t need to, but you think WOMEN will? 💀

And on top of all that, we live in a time where EVERYTHING is more accessible than it ever was. You can literally access everything a teacher or prof would be teaching in their classroom or lecture hall from the comfort of your home. You can even find the Textbooks online for free. And you have more in depth content available on YouTube than you’ll even be able to cover in your lifetime. MOST OF WHICH TEACH BETTER THAN ACTUAL TEACHERS!

Please… THINK before you SIMP.

Since the question seems to be coming up (as some cringe attempt at an “own”):

How would I raise my daughter?

- Being present and actually having conversation and spending time with her when I can, because being a father isn’t just about paying bills.
- Homeschooling (Yes, it is more than doable.)
- Making sure she learns her Farḍ ʿAyn from an early age, with emphasis on what her role is as a woman.
- Teaching her the Islamic worldview from the beginning and not waiting until she is a confused 25 year old who believes in “Human Rights”.
- Actually teaching her the Dīn in a proper and comprehensive manner, rather than just randomly restricting things and saying “this is ḥarām”.
- Getting her married young.

If the ʿulamāʾ of the past were alive today, and they saw our state, I wonder who they would side with… 🤔

A question to those of you who label me as “extreme” or “overzealous”:

Do you think Shaykh al-Islām Mustafa Sabrī, for example, would agree with my ideas, or yours? 😊

I mention Shaykh al-Islām Mustafa Sabrī specifically because he was the last scholar from the Ottoman period to really push back in the realm of politics.

How can Muslims get strong and dominant again?

Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri al-Hanafi al-Ash'ari-Maturidi:

"As for if they [meaning Muslims] want to be strong in religion [dīn] and the world [dunyā] together, and be revived to life again before the Hereafter, the way to achieve this goal, in our current situation where we have no hope and no ability to compete with the dominant nations in the two mentioned wars, by means of weapons, is to hold fast to our religion and take power from its strength, until we attain worldly power that surpasses the powerful;because Islam is the strongest of religions and the most in harmony with reason ['aql], which, by its virtue, overcomes the dominion of the world [dunyā]."

-Mawqif al-'Aql wa-l-' Ilm wa-l-'Alam.

Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri clearly mentioning worldly strength as a necessary religious objective.

Effeminate Californian Sîdîs, sodomised madkhalis, quetistic pseudo-sufi pseudo-traditionalists, quietistic tablighis and neobandis won't understand this.


Was reading the biography of Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri Efendi..

Some kemalists accuse him of being behind the 🅱️o.mb attack which ki.lled the Mahmut Şevket Paşa (from the secularist party of Atak***).

I don't know if it's accurate, but if it is (and even if it isn't, considering all his other efforts), what an illustrious exemplary vitalist man of action!

He even gave very open fatawa of kufr and necessity of executing various kemalist party leaders.

This is the Maturidiyyah that they took away from us..

I find it cute when people feel the need to use my name to bring up their engagement :) ❤️

But you could have just asked me to quote tweet you. No need to start slandering and throwing accusations :P

Excellent thread! 👌🏻

https://x.com/azhaar3818/status/1805510382657978836?s=46&t=u7NphK_UOITTpyzQ8wGaDA

👆🏻As I mentioned before!

I apologize for the lack of PDF uploads. I’ve been rather busy. I will try to upload some more soon, InshāʾAllāh.

Feel free to request/recommend specific texts or topics in the comments.

Is "vigilantism" ALWAYS prohibited?
Or, of embarassed western apologetics and sloppy simplicistic deformism.

In light of the recent happenings in Pakistan, the uninformed “debate” over “mob justice” and “vigilantism” resurfaced once again, with the typical simplicistic, twisting and referenceless approach that characterize embarassed kneejerk apologetic “Islamic scholarship” and “da’wah” in the west.

So, the whole discussion on "vigilantism" (as with those on "obeying the law of the land is a religious obligation" or "citizenship is a form of ‘ahd", “pacts can never ever be broken”, “human lives are always SaCrEd”) in the prevalent discourse is not being presented accurately and is abused beyond its limits into an absolutist “vigilantism is always absolutely haram, full stop”.

Is this really the case?

An eminent Hanafi Mufti summarized the matter as follows, presenting the different rulings according to the various cases and situations:

1. For hudud and qisas, vigilantism is not allowed. While the perpetrator is not involved in a sin/crime, vigilante ta‘zir is also not allowed. Only the qadi or ruler can enforce punishment in these cases. Also the father/mother/guardian of child; husband; slaveowner can enforce limited ta‘zir punishment post-sin for discipline purposes.

2. While the sin/crime is ongoing, vigilantism is allowed to some extent. E.g. if someone invades one’s property and the owner of the property kills the intruder and he produces evidence that the intruder intended to harm him this will be allowed; without this evidence, he will be liable for qisas, unless the intruder is a known theif, then he will be liable for diyah. Also if someone is displaying a weapon and exhibiting threatening behaviour in public, vigilantism is allowed to stop this individual. If items were stolen, vigilantism can be allowed to some extent to retrieve the items. A woman who kills a man who is trying to force himself on her when there is no other option is another example that’s mentioned. And anyone can stop someone sinning publicly.

3. Someone who has become murtadd, however, is no longer ma‘sum al-dam, his dam is hadr (void) – i.e. there is no qisas or diyah for killing a murtadd. However if someone kills a murtadd without approval of the qadi or hakim, then they will need witnesses to give evidence that the person actually did become murtadd and did not repent. If they can’t produce witnesses, then they will be guilty of murder qada’an, even if diyanatan they are not sinful.

We can find also Imam al-Ghazali supporting “vigilantism” (as a last resort) to stop belligerent, open fussaq. (Ihya, vol4):