There aren’t many things that disgust me more than self-proclaimed Muslims who are soft and empathetic towards kuffār while simultaneously being harsh and aggressive towards other Muslims they disagree with on secondary theological matters.
It is a sign of nifāq.
It is a sign of nifāq.
💯9👍4❤3
Most of the discourse on marrying outside your culture is annoying but I would like to touch on it from a nuanced Islamic perspective. Assuming that Dīn is the priority here, there isn’t “only one correct practice”. Especially nowadays.
Racism is an issue, always has been an issue, and always will be an issue, but people throw around the label too casually when this topic comes up. The culture-clash argument is a valid one. People naturally prefer to be around like-minded people. This is how human beings are wired. A person is not racist for feeling uncomfortable around people who look, talk, and act differently from what they are accustomed to, let alone having such people become part of their family.
Things like differences in food, language, cultural references, physical appearance, traditions and practices, etc. can affect how people get along. To deny this is dishonest and absurd. Obviously there can be a range with this and the level of differences can vary. Some cultures are closer to each other than others, and some families are more tolerant and open-minded than others. But the point still stands.
A lot of people won’t like hearing this but marriage doesn’t just involve you and your partner. Unless you marry an orphan or something, the in-laws are going to be part of the equation. And unless your parents are also diaspora themselves, they will most likely take issue with you marrying outside your culture. Whether they are being reasonable or not won’t change the fact that this is going to be a problem.
I know that diaspora living in the west and people from the younger generations don’t really understand how much the differences in culture could impact the marriage because they have all become accustomed to western culture. A 20 year old Palestinian female who was born and raised in the west may not even have a hard time getting along with white guys around her age. Obviously that is a massive problem within and of itself but I digress.
A lot of people from the older generations also commonly have sentiments like wanting to preserve their cultures through their children. This is to be expected and is, once again, natural.
At the same time, one can (rightfully) argue that many of our cultures have become so corrupt and un-Islamic that there isn’t really much of a need to preserve them. This will obviously vary from family to family.
Preserving culture used to be the way that the Dīn was passed on from generation to generation. But we now live in a global village and the west has been spreading their ideologies everywhere through their trojan horses. Most of our cultures have practices and norms that are contrary to Islām, so if one was to try to properly practice Islām, they’ll likely run into issues with their family. This can also be described as a culture-clash.
Proper Dīn and a purely Islamic worldview should be prioritized above anything else. This is a given. But not everyone is blessed enough to know what that even looks like, and/or sincere + intelligent enough to find it.
For those who are content with living the way their families live, are fine with all the cultural norms, not interested in bettering or fixing themselves religiously, and/or just want to maximize their chances of having a long-lasting and easy-going marriage without making any changes to themselves, it would probably be best to marry within their own culture so that whatever Islamic elements their culture still has can be retained in their lives.
For converts, people who come from non-practicing families, and/or those who recognize the lack of Dīn within their cultures/families and genuinely want to improve and work on themselves religiously, marrying outside your culture can range from doable to optimal.
There is a lot of nuance to this topic, especially today. One should consult and discuss with multiple competent and reliable people before making decisions that will significantly impact you and those around you.
Racism is an issue, always has been an issue, and always will be an issue, but people throw around the label too casually when this topic comes up. The culture-clash argument is a valid one. People naturally prefer to be around like-minded people. This is how human beings are wired. A person is not racist for feeling uncomfortable around people who look, talk, and act differently from what they are accustomed to, let alone having such people become part of their family.
Things like differences in food, language, cultural references, physical appearance, traditions and practices, etc. can affect how people get along. To deny this is dishonest and absurd. Obviously there can be a range with this and the level of differences can vary. Some cultures are closer to each other than others, and some families are more tolerant and open-minded than others. But the point still stands.
A lot of people won’t like hearing this but marriage doesn’t just involve you and your partner. Unless you marry an orphan or something, the in-laws are going to be part of the equation. And unless your parents are also diaspora themselves, they will most likely take issue with you marrying outside your culture. Whether they are being reasonable or not won’t change the fact that this is going to be a problem.
I know that diaspora living in the west and people from the younger generations don’t really understand how much the differences in culture could impact the marriage because they have all become accustomed to western culture. A 20 year old Palestinian female who was born and raised in the west may not even have a hard time getting along with white guys around her age. Obviously that is a massive problem within and of itself but I digress.
A lot of people from the older generations also commonly have sentiments like wanting to preserve their cultures through their children. This is to be expected and is, once again, natural.
At the same time, one can (rightfully) argue that many of our cultures have become so corrupt and un-Islamic that there isn’t really much of a need to preserve them. This will obviously vary from family to family.
Preserving culture used to be the way that the Dīn was passed on from generation to generation. But we now live in a global village and the west has been spreading their ideologies everywhere through their trojan horses. Most of our cultures have practices and norms that are contrary to Islām, so if one was to try to properly practice Islām, they’ll likely run into issues with their family. This can also be described as a culture-clash.
Proper Dīn and a purely Islamic worldview should be prioritized above anything else. This is a given. But not everyone is blessed enough to know what that even looks like, and/or sincere + intelligent enough to find it.
For those who are content with living the way their families live, are fine with all the cultural norms, not interested in bettering or fixing themselves religiously, and/or just want to maximize their chances of having a long-lasting and easy-going marriage without making any changes to themselves, it would probably be best to marry within their own culture so that whatever Islamic elements their culture still has can be retained in their lives.
For converts, people who come from non-practicing families, and/or those who recognize the lack of Dīn within their cultures/families and genuinely want to improve and work on themselves religiously, marrying outside your culture can range from doable to optimal.
There is a lot of nuance to this topic, especially today. One should consult and discuss with multiple competent and reliable people before making decisions that will significantly impact you and those around you.
💯6❤3👍3
قناة السمسمية الكبرى
Most of the discourse on marrying outside your culture is annoying but I would like to touch on it from a nuanced Islamic perspective. Assuming that Dīn is the priority here, there isn’t “only one correct practice”. Especially nowadays. Racism is an issue…
To be completely honest, the overwhelmingly majority of Muslims in the west don’t actually understand what being religious means. Their understanding of the Dīn is extremely superficial, and they have tons of extremely problematic ideas that go against core tenants of Islam. Their morality and beliefs are more in line with liberalism, secularism, the UN, and international law than they are with Islām.
And more often than not, when someone from the diaspora wants to marry outside their culture or ethnicity (and I’ve noticed this is particularly common with women), it is usually because of exposure to some form of the media or social influence. I am not making a blanket statement here, but if you investigate a bit further, you’ll realize that a lot of these people become infatuated with a specific culture or race due to TV, social media, and/or influence from their friends. This is especially common in the west, but you find this everywhere these days. The term people like to use for this is “fetishization” but I prefer to avoid using terms that are often abused in leftist circles.
Also, not all negative attitudes towards certain races or cultures is “prejudice”. Prejudice would be preconceived notions that are not based in reality (there are a lot of parallels between actual prejudice and the “fetishization”). Although cases like this exist, it definitely isn’t as common as people make it seem. A negative perception towards a particular race or culture can be justified or understandable, just like many stereotypes have elements of truth to them.
The Culture vs Religion debate (i.e., “this particular practice or ruling is not from the Dīn, it is actually from culture!”) is another very abused talking point, and it is hardly ever applied correctly or truthfully nowadays. More often than not (especially with the popular issues most people today complain about due to the widespread cancer of individualism), you’ll find that the cultural practice or norm is in fact either directly from the Dīn and can be found in the books of fiqh, or the practice is not an established decisive ruling but is very much in line with Islamic ethics. But because western “scholars” have been lying and distorting to appease diaspora and westerners, the laypeople have become confused. They don’t actually know how to differentiate between what is from Dīn and what is from culture. If they don’t like something, they’ll say “it’s just cultural”. If their culture doesn’t allow something they want, they’ll claim “the Dīn supports it though!”.
Sometimes the parents are being totally unreasonable. Most parents today are genuinely clueless about what ideas their children hold. But sometimes the parents are quite wise and see through these things. There are many variables that one must take into account. Hence, every situation should be analyzed in detail.
And more often than not, when someone from the diaspora wants to marry outside their culture or ethnicity (and I’ve noticed this is particularly common with women), it is usually because of exposure to some form of the media or social influence. I am not making a blanket statement here, but if you investigate a bit further, you’ll realize that a lot of these people become infatuated with a specific culture or race due to TV, social media, and/or influence from their friends. This is especially common in the west, but you find this everywhere these days. The term people like to use for this is “fetishization” but I prefer to avoid using terms that are often abused in leftist circles.
Also, not all negative attitudes towards certain races or cultures is “prejudice”. Prejudice would be preconceived notions that are not based in reality (there are a lot of parallels between actual prejudice and the “fetishization”). Although cases like this exist, it definitely isn’t as common as people make it seem. A negative perception towards a particular race or culture can be justified or understandable, just like many stereotypes have elements of truth to them.
The Culture vs Religion debate (i.e., “this particular practice or ruling is not from the Dīn, it is actually from culture!”) is another very abused talking point, and it is hardly ever applied correctly or truthfully nowadays. More often than not (especially with the popular issues most people today complain about due to the widespread cancer of individualism), you’ll find that the cultural practice or norm is in fact either directly from the Dīn and can be found in the books of fiqh, or the practice is not an established decisive ruling but is very much in line with Islamic ethics. But because western “scholars” have been lying and distorting to appease diaspora and westerners, the laypeople have become confused. They don’t actually know how to differentiate between what is from Dīn and what is from culture. If they don’t like something, they’ll say “it’s just cultural”. If their culture doesn’t allow something they want, they’ll claim “the Dīn supports it though!”.
Sometimes the parents are being totally unreasonable. Most parents today are genuinely clueless about what ideas their children hold. But sometimes the parents are quite wise and see through these things. There are many variables that one must take into account. Hence, every situation should be analyzed in detail.
💯6❤2👍2👏1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
“Women’s Education” is a Z¡onist Project:
This is a clip from an episode of a television series called “The Advocates”. The episode was broadcasted in 1978 and featured Benjamin Netanyahu, who at this time was going by the name “Ben Nitay”. He discussed the PLO, the West Bank & Gaza, and plans for the Palestinian State.
In this clip, “Mr. Nitay” is asked about population demographics, which we all know is a very integral aspect of the Z¡onist project. The questioner mentions that the stats indicate an Arab-majority population in the future, and asks Netanyahu about the apparent contradiction in claiming Z¡onism while not doing anything about these demographics.
Netanyahu’s response: Recent stats actually show a DECLINE in the Arab birth rates, especially in the West Bank and Gaza, as a result of WOMEN’S HIGHER & UNIVERSAL EDUCATION, which was not there prior to Isra€l.
He then proceeds to make diplomatic and “politically correct” statements about “not forcing any type of birth control programs”, and “allowing Palestinians to multiply as they wish”.
Surely, you don’t need me to spell this out for you.
This is a clip from an episode of a television series called “The Advocates”. The episode was broadcasted in 1978 and featured Benjamin Netanyahu, who at this time was going by the name “Ben Nitay”. He discussed the PLO, the West Bank & Gaza, and plans for the Palestinian State.
In this clip, “Mr. Nitay” is asked about population demographics, which we all know is a very integral aspect of the Z¡onist project. The questioner mentions that the stats indicate an Arab-majority population in the future, and asks Netanyahu about the apparent contradiction in claiming Z¡onism while not doing anything about these demographics.
Netanyahu’s response: Recent stats actually show a DECLINE in the Arab birth rates, especially in the West Bank and Gaza, as a result of WOMEN’S HIGHER & UNIVERSAL EDUCATION, which was not there prior to Isra€l.
He then proceeds to make diplomatic and “politically correct” statements about “not forcing any type of birth control programs”, and “allowing Palestinians to multiply as they wish”.
Surely, you don’t need me to spell this out for you.
👍5💯2😱1🤣1😐1
قناة السمسمية الكبرى
“Women’s Education” is a Z¡onist Project: This is a clip from an episode of a television series called “The Advocates”. The episode was broadcasted in 1978 and featured Benjamin Netanyahu, who at this time was going by the name “Ben Nitay”. He discussed the…
The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com
Who is Ben Nitay, and why does he look so much like Binyamin Netanyahu?
Young Israeli economist argues against Palestinian state in vintage video.
👍1🤔1🥴1
قناة السمسمية الكبرى
“Women’s Education” is a Z¡onist Project: This is a clip from an episode of a television series called “The Advocates”. The episode was broadcasted in 1978 and featured Benjamin Netanyahu, who at this time was going by the name “Ben Nitay”. He discussed the…
YouTube
Benjamin Netanyahu in 1978 discussing the PLO, the West Bank & a Palestinian State
In 1978, Benjamin Netanyahu (then known as Ben Nitay) discussed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the West Bank, a Palestinian State and human rights on a TV series called "The Advocates", which in this episode debates the question, "Should the…
👍2🤬2😢1
Why Women Cannot Travel Without a Maḥram:
An important part of Uṣūl that is often misconstrued and conflated is the differentiation between ḥikmah (legal wisdom) and ʿilla (legal reason).
To give a simple example, alcohol is ḥarām. We can sit here and come up with all kinds of potential wisdoms behind the prohibition, such as the health problems it causes, and the societal issues that will arise from its widespread consumption. But neither of these is the ʿilla (legal reason) for its prohibition. Each of these may be a potential legal wisdom (ḥikmah) behind the legislation, but they are not the legal reason (ʿilla) of prohibition. The ʿilla for the prohibition of khamr is that it intoxicates.
Women traveling on their own has become a lot more common due to the rise in bint fiqh, contemporary sell-outs, distorters, etc. If the woman cares enough to try defending herself from an Islamic framework, she’ll probably cite you the horrible argument that “travel is safe now”. This safety argument is a load of nonsense because there have been cases of women getting r@ped on public transit and literally being set on fire, with everyone around them just watching. Even a maḥram does not guarantee safety, especially nowadays.
According to the overwhelming majority of scholars, the ʿilla (legal reasoning) of prohibition for women traveling without a maḥram is not limited to safety. There is no proof for such a specification. The ruling of prohibition is understood to be general, based on aḥādīth, and the understanding of these aḥādīth are agreed upon, as well as their general application.
The only exceptions to the general prohibition were for Ḥajj and/or ʿUmrah, and some of the scholars even said that the obligation of Ḥajj is waived off for the woman that doesn’t have a maḥram. Just take that in. And now these women today are traveling without a maḥram for “education”, “business”, and “girls’ trips”. I shouldn’t need to elaborate any further on this.
If you look at the statements of the classical scholars on this masʾala of women travelling without a maḥram, it is quite clear that safety was not their only concern. In fact, in most writings I have come across, it seems to not even be the main one. Safety of the woman is only a potential legal wisdom (ḥikmah).
The main issue with women traveling without a maḥram is their female behavior being left unchecked. There are tendencies and behaviors that women are prone to when they are not restricted and under the authority of a male guardian. Women naturally cause fitna and it is in their nature to crave attention. They are also very impulsive and reckless. I’ll leave it at that.
This is why even with the exceptions, like traveling without a maḥram for Ḥajj according to some scholars, you will see that the scholars specify that it must be with TRUSTWORTHY WOMEN (نسوة ثقات). I wonder how many women today even fulfill the criteria to qualify for such a title.
The reason why none of these contemporary sell-outs mention these details is because it completely goes against their modernization and “women’s empowerment” project. They make lots of money off of pandering to the overwhelmingly liberal Muslim populations of today, especially the old and bitter unmarried women who have tons of money to donate. They cannot risk offending or upsetting their source of income.
Once you actually delve into this masʾala, all the other rulings pertaining to women that these modern day “scholars” try to hide from the common people will start to make a lot more sense. In fact, you’ll probably start to come to those conclusions yourself through sincere contemplation, even if you haven’t heard of those other rulings before. The aḥkām pertaining to women leaving the house are all quite consistent :)
An important part of Uṣūl that is often misconstrued and conflated is the differentiation between ḥikmah (legal wisdom) and ʿilla (legal reason).
To give a simple example, alcohol is ḥarām. We can sit here and come up with all kinds of potential wisdoms behind the prohibition, such as the health problems it causes, and the societal issues that will arise from its widespread consumption. But neither of these is the ʿilla (legal reason) for its prohibition. Each of these may be a potential legal wisdom (ḥikmah) behind the legislation, but they are not the legal reason (ʿilla) of prohibition. The ʿilla for the prohibition of khamr is that it intoxicates.
Women traveling on their own has become a lot more common due to the rise in bint fiqh, contemporary sell-outs, distorters, etc. If the woman cares enough to try defending herself from an Islamic framework, she’ll probably cite you the horrible argument that “travel is safe now”. This safety argument is a load of nonsense because there have been cases of women getting r@ped on public transit and literally being set on fire, with everyone around them just watching. Even a maḥram does not guarantee safety, especially nowadays.
According to the overwhelming majority of scholars, the ʿilla (legal reasoning) of prohibition for women traveling without a maḥram is not limited to safety. There is no proof for such a specification. The ruling of prohibition is understood to be general, based on aḥādīth, and the understanding of these aḥādīth are agreed upon, as well as their general application.
The only exceptions to the general prohibition were for Ḥajj and/or ʿUmrah, and some of the scholars even said that the obligation of Ḥajj is waived off for the woman that doesn’t have a maḥram. Just take that in. And now these women today are traveling without a maḥram for “education”, “business”, and “girls’ trips”. I shouldn’t need to elaborate any further on this.
If you look at the statements of the classical scholars on this masʾala of women travelling without a maḥram, it is quite clear that safety was not their only concern. In fact, in most writings I have come across, it seems to not even be the main one. Safety of the woman is only a potential legal wisdom (ḥikmah).
The main issue with women traveling without a maḥram is their female behavior being left unchecked. There are tendencies and behaviors that women are prone to when they are not restricted and under the authority of a male guardian. Women naturally cause fitna and it is in their nature to crave attention. They are also very impulsive and reckless. I’ll leave it at that.
This is why even with the exceptions, like traveling without a maḥram for Ḥajj according to some scholars, you will see that the scholars specify that it must be with TRUSTWORTHY WOMEN (نسوة ثقات). I wonder how many women today even fulfill the criteria to qualify for such a title.
The reason why none of these contemporary sell-outs mention these details is because it completely goes against their modernization and “women’s empowerment” project. They make lots of money off of pandering to the overwhelmingly liberal Muslim populations of today, especially the old and bitter unmarried women who have tons of money to donate. They cannot risk offending or upsetting their source of income.
Once you actually delve into this masʾala, all the other rulings pertaining to women that these modern day “scholars” try to hide from the common people will start to make a lot more sense. In fact, you’ll probably start to come to those conclusions yourself through sincere contemplation, even if you haven’t heard of those other rulings before. The aḥkām pertaining to women leaving the house are all quite consistent :)
👍8❤4💯3
To summarize:
- He had some basic ghayrah and wanted to establish the necessary boundaries between his wife and non-maḥram men.
- He was being transparent about what she should expect in the marriage.
- She deemed this to be “insane & controlling behaviour”.
- She wasn’t raised properly and her family never gave her rules to follow, because they either didn’t know basic fiqh or just didn’t care enough to teach her any of it.
- She considers someone who believes in gender segregation and authority of the husband to be among those who “fundamentally misunderstands our religion”.
What does “a good guy” look like for women like this? 😂
- He had some basic ghayrah and wanted to establish the necessary boundaries between his wife and non-maḥram men.
- He was being transparent about what she should expect in the marriage.
- She deemed this to be “insane & controlling behaviour”.
- She wasn’t raised properly and her family never gave her rules to follow, because they either didn’t know basic fiqh or just didn’t care enough to teach her any of it.
- She considers someone who believes in gender segregation and authority of the husband to be among those who “fundamentally misunderstands our religion”.
What does “a good guy” look like for women like this? 😂
😭10🤮5🤣4❤3
Muslims in the West: “There is nothing wrong with living in Dār al-Kufr because we are able to practice Islām”.
Also Muslims in the West: “We need a whole new approach to fiqh because we are minorities living in Dār al-Kufr and cannot practice Islām properly here”.
Also Muslims in the West: “We need a whole new approach to fiqh because we are minorities living in Dār al-Kufr and cannot practice Islām properly here”.
🤣17💯8👍4🗿3
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Yasir Ghandi casually citing 109:6 during his speech at the “Balancing Our Faith with Civil Rights” conference, (mis)using (and distorting) the verse to support a secular-liberal worldview.
The main contention here was LGBLTBBQ rights btw.
The main contention here was LGBLTBBQ rights btw.
🤣8😱2😐1
Hand-writing proper, neat, and organized notes entirely in Arabic is extremely time-consuming but feels very rewarding.
I would heavily recommend this to ṭullāb who are still trying to get comfortable and fluent with Arabic. It allows for more consistent exposure.
I would heavily recommend this to ṭullāb who are still trying to get comfortable and fluent with Arabic. It allows for more consistent exposure.
👍5❤3💯1
قناة السمسمية الكبرى
Hand-writing proper, neat, and organized notes entirely in Arabic is extremely time-consuming but feels very rewarding. I would heavily recommend this to ṭullāb who are still trying to get comfortable and fluent with Arabic. It allows for more consistent…
I may or may not upload some pictures of my handwritten notes later… 👀
🥰2😁2
I will never understand how a man can accept his wife working outside the house, or his daughter attending a secular university, in non-segregated environments, with kuffār, where they will spend most of their waking hours, for most of their lives.
Nowadays, the vast majority of men don’t even just tolerate this stuff. They encourage and demand it, and even BOAST about it to their friends and family. Just the mere thought of this makes me sick.
I would rather take the absolute lowest standard of living or not get married at all than allow any of the above.
Nowadays, the vast majority of men don’t even just tolerate this stuff. They encourage and demand it, and even BOAST about it to their friends and family. Just the mere thought of this makes me sick.
I would rather take the absolute lowest standard of living or not get married at all than allow any of the above.
❤10💯7😢3
Forwarded from العلامة الشيخ نضال آله رشي الحنفي
السؤال (٤): ما رأي شيخنا نضال حفظه الله في عورة المرأة أمام الأجانب في عصرنا هذا؟
الجواب (٤): عورتها ما عدا وجهها وباطن كفيها، أما ظاهر كفيها فعورة يجب سترها، ويجب ستر وجهها في معتمد في المذاهب الأربعة.
العلامة الشيخ نضال آله رشي الحنفي
الجواب (٤): عورتها ما عدا وجهها وباطن كفيها، أما ظاهر كفيها فعورة يجب سترها، ويجب ستر وجهها في معتمد في المذاهب الأربعة.
العلامة الشيخ نضال آله رشي الحنفي
Forwarded from Islam Against Modernism - الماتريدية الجها.دية
Pseudo-fiqh taught by western imams, neo-Azharis etc:
"Hijab is a JoUrNeY culminating with a foulard covering one's hair, a caked-up face, a flirting smiling face for her boss (but never for her husband) and empowering a Muslim woman to enter the public social sphere".
Actual take of the four madhahib:
A woman should not emerge from her home unless it's necessary, and in those circumstances she should cover completely; niqab (I.e. leaving eyes uncovered) is not permissible - it doesn't cover enough!
"Hijab is a JoUrNeY culminating with a foulard covering one's hair, a caked-up face, a flirting smiling face for her boss (but never for her husband) and empowering a Muslim woman to enter the public social sphere".
Actual take of the four madhahib:
A woman should not emerge from her home unless it's necessary, and in those circumstances she should cover completely; niqab (I.e. leaving eyes uncovered) is not permissible - it doesn't cover enough!
💯12🔥2