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):

So, as we can see, the matter is quite more complex, and in some circumstance, “taking the law into one’s hands” is actually demanded, nor is an Islamic court always needed (rather, it depends on the case).

Another important point.

The “soft souls” crying about “vigilantism” will point out (not fully accurately, as we’ve seen), that in order to exert a punishment, an Islamic government and an Islamic court and due process are necessary.

But at the same time, they never stress the need to have an Islamic government and Islamic courts, in the first place!

If they were sincere, they would say “hold on, we should firstly obligatorily establish an Islamic system and Islamic courts, so that everything may be done in its full right process”.

But that's not what their concern is really about.

Instead, they just use the lack of Islamic courts as a pretext, and otherwise, they never call to establish them, rather, they ridicule and deny the need for an Islamic system, and they're fully content with the present manmade law kufri systems!

For them, the lack of Islamic courts is not a technicality that must be solved in order to correctly apply the rulings of Shari’ah, but rather it’s a relief for their inferiority-complexed embarass in its being an obstacle to the implementation of hudud and punishments.

They in the first place do not want punishments to be implemented, and the lack of Islamic court is a technical pretext for them to avoid applying Islamic ruling, and not something to deal with and solve in order to finally implement Allah’s law.

For such people, it is only about nullifying the implementation of Shari’ah; meanwhile, they place all stress over the deification of the secular Nation-State taghut, the absolutization of its complete obedience and the acceptance of its hakimiyyah – you’ll never find any “NuAnCe” nor seeking for technicalities when they call to “obey the law of the land”.

In short: it's quite clear that those modernist liberal pseudo-traditionalists who are vehemently opposed to these episodes have other more sinister ideological motives i.e. opposition to hudud and Islamic punishments in principle; and are just covering it in the guise of opposition to "vigilantism".

🌴"والتقدم لمعالي الأمور قبل إتقان أصولها وضبط طرقها عجلة وشهوة نفسانية توجب لصاحبها الفضيحة دنيا وأخرى"

الإمام السنوسي.

“Moving to advanced matters before mastering its foundations and its ways… Rushing and lusting leads to scandal for the person, in this world and the next.”

Imām al-Sanūsī

-------------------------------
https://t.me/Imamabuhanifaacademy

🚨 IMPORTANT 🚨
‼️ READ UNTIL THE END ‼️

I’ve been noticing a disturbing trend of constant jokes pertaining to the Dīn becoming extremely common and they’re genuinely starting to cross lines. Some of it is reaching kufr territory.

A recent example: A lot of people don’t realize that the AI meme generator thing currently making the rounds sometimes generates things that implicitly mock the Dīn, and people are overlooking that.

This atmosphere of constantly joking and not taking anything seriously is harmful in general, but when one is making jokes related to the Dīn, you are now risking your akhirah altogether. The joke you make today or tomorrow may not reach the level of kufr, but desensitizing yourself to constantly joking and laughing about Dīnī matters can easily lead to it.

Let me remind you that one can leave the folds of Islām without intending to and without even realizing it. That is terrifying. Imagine believing you were a Muslim, doing all these ʿibadāt, and then finding out you died a disbeliever…

Fear Allāh, repent, and rectify your affairs before it’s too late!

I warn and caution people from reading or promoting “The Clear Qurʾān” translation by Mustafa Khattab.

Sadly, this translation has become one of the most widely used and distributed ones in daʿwah, and it has many issues. Many of which are extremely subtle.

Those who have read it know exactly what I’m talking about. It is literally THE translation for “Western Izlam” and “Western Mozlems”.

I probably will get attacked for this, but I genuinely don’t care.

There are so many better translations out there, by actual qualified ʿulamāʾ. Ṭullāb al-ʿIlm need to do their part and make sure that those around them are learning from the right resources.

‎This woman is not a Muslim. She has denied and rejected what is Maʿlūm min al-Dīn bil-Darūrah.

‎There are some errors in this video refuting her as well. For example, Khadījah رضي الله عنها was not the “boss” of the Prophet ﷺ.

Excellent program ran and taught by some of our greatest contemporary scholars!

Retweet and share to those who may benefit, InshāʾAllāh.

Excellent video by @Haqiqatjou.

“Easy fatawa” (distortion of the Sharīʿah) results in complacency. Complacency results in weakness and incompetence.

This leniency towards deviant “scholars” is one of the biggest reasons for our current state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduplmxQPgc