Shaikh Yusuf al-Nabhani says in the conclusion of his book, arba'oon hadeethan fee madh al sunnah wa tham al bid'ah: "Know that following these 4 madhabs- which the ummah unanimously accepts from the era of their founders until today and until Allah wishes- falls under following the Quran and sunnah, as they [the madhabs] are explanations for them. And when ever the word ahlus sunnah wal jama'h is used, for over 1000 years until today it is understood from it that the adherants of the 4 madhabs are meant. So whoever leaves the boundaries of the madhabs they do not consider him a part of ahlus sunnah wal jama'h. And only deviants and those who serve their desires ever left its boundaries throughout history until our times today.
And I know that there has never been a sect of innovation and misguidance even from the misguided sects of the past, who caused more harm to Islam and the Muslims than the sect of Muhammad Abduh al Misri and Jamal al Din al Afghani who emerged in these recent times. Their followers have increased in the lands of Shaam and Egypt. These two were the shaytan's greatest allies in misguiding ignorant Muslims, and in sowing disunity within the believers, may Allah not grant them a good reward on behalf of Islam and Muslims. And the two have a group of misguidance, who have rejected the 4 madhabs following the example of those two (Abduh and Afghani). Every single one of them believes of himself that he can extract rulings from the Quran and Sunnah independently, and that there is no difference between them and the mujtahid Imams. And that thought is only due to a deficiency in intellect and in religious practice. If that person was of sound mind he would have followed the path of the believers.
And this group named themselves the reformers of the religion of Islam, when in reality they are from the most misguided of the laity and the most harmful of insects. These people are either unmindful to the point that they are considered insane, or they are zanadiqah who have [in reality] left Islam. They neither carry out any acts of obedience [to Allah], nor do they adhere to any religion. Or then they are from the ignorant evil doers. Those who are reckless and insolent. They speak pretentiously while making these false claims [of reform and ijtihad etc], and they act upon the rulings of Islam arbitrarily to serve their corrupt objectives. They place their impure selves in the place of the mujtahid Imams. Some of these [followers of Abduh and Afghani] are from amongst the incapable students, while others have never even smelt the fragrance of ilm or deen. Despite this they make people claim ijtihad, and they make them reject the 4 madhabs. If one of them is a teacher in a madressa, he will spread that [ideology] to the minds of the poor students so that many of the students who graduate from their madressas reject the 4 madhabs and their followers from amongst the Muslims.
These people are in reality not adherants to the sharia'h at all, as they leave Salah Zakah Hajj and Sawm, and any other rulings that may be derived from those rulings.
Therefore we ask Allah for aafiyah and for a good ending.

So, was Imam Muhammad ash-Shaybani, Arab from contemporary Iraq, major student of Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Malik, a "backward Pashtun tribal mullah"? Or a "mysogynyst influenced by Hinduism or Greek philosophy or victorian morality and colonialism"?... 😏

(you know the usual accusation of "muh that's not from Izlaam, that's from CuLtUrE" coming from those claiming to having discovered the "true original authentic pristine Izlaam" so magically coinciding with the latest western ideologies and sensitivities (Abduhism 101)).

Muslims who unironically use the term “genocide” as an inherently evil and morally condemnable act (as per the understanding of secular-liberalism and “human rights”) deserve to get beaten and lashed.

The Average Modern Muslim’s understanding of Morality:

a) Socially conditioned to believe X is bad.
b) As a Muslim, they believe that Islām wouldn’t permit, encourage, or obligate something bad.
c) Therefore, they believe Islām must prohibit X.

Shaykh Saeed Foudah on "Islamic" Democracies

“Some people may conflate a religious State with a democratic State. The confusion arises when, at a given moment or era, the people choose to derive laws from religion and abide by its commandments and prohibition. Outwardly, the State may appear religious, but in truth, it remains democratic—because the validity of these laws stems not from their religious origin, but from popular consent.
Thus, if we assume the people later choose to adopt laws other than religious ones, this would not imply their abandonment of democracy’s essence, since they would still be legislating according to their own will.
However, they would necessarily abandon religious legislation, as is evident, and the State would no longer be classified as religious, which would dissolve the apparent entanglement between:
- An absolutely democratic State,
- A democratic state that temporarily adopts religious laws, and
- A democratic state that never adopts religious laws in its legislation.”

[Al-Mūjaz fī at-Taḥaddiyāt: bayna ‘Ilm al-Kalām wa al-Falsafa (The Concise Guide to the Contemporary Challenges: Between Kalām and Philosophy)]

A democracy can't be "Islamic", and an Islamic polity can't be democratic, as the essential basic concept of democracy invalidates Allah's Sovereignty.

Any appearence of "Islamic democracy" can only be incidental, temporary and superficial.

The Fuqahā’ have stated that if someone describes the beauty and charm of a Muslim woman to disbeliever, there is a fear of apostasy.

~ Maulana Idrees Kandhlawi (رحمہ اللہ)

Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri on Abduhist false claims of "tajdid" to conceal their western-loving deformism

The "renewal" (tajdid) we often witness is motivated by imitation, i.e., tashabbuh. There's a big difference between imitation and [true] renewal. Many reinterpretations of verses that occur under the guise of "renewal" are more deserving of being called "alteration", i.e., tahrif, as opposed to [genuine] "interpretation". -

Quote Adapted from An Essential Guide to Islam & Evolution by Mufti Zameelur Rahman, As-Subah Publications, London, England, Jumad al-Ula 1446| November 2024

https://maktabahimamghazali.blogspot.com/2025/05/tahqeeq-research-tahreef-distortion.html

Question (168): We know that, in principle, it is not permissible for men and women to study together. But society needs female doctors. Due to necessity, can I enroll my daughter in medical university?

Answer (168): Nowadays, the number of male and female doctors exceeds the number of patients. There is no need for this.

Allama Sheikh Nidal al-Hanafi

The example of another fairly recent Hanafi Maturidi Turkish scholar applying the concept of taghut to secular political authorities:


1- The soul whose desires are worshipped is a taghut.

2- Every individual and leader who does not recognize the commands and prohibitions of Allah and calls for orders and principles that conflict with the Islamic order is a taghut.

3- Things, people and idols that are perceived as having power other than Allah are a taghut.

4- Satan is a taghut.

5- All traditions that conflict with Allah's Shari'ah, all regimes based on it, are tyrants.

(Elmalılı, Hak Dini Kur'an Dili, 2/869).

Look at the state of the ummah that once had so many mujahideen. An irish disbeliever defeats an israeli in a haram sport and utters words in support of Palestine while striking him. The Muslim ummah rejoices and shares the video. What wall should we bang our heads against to escape this humiliation? Look at what we use to console ourselves. Our standing before Allah will be dire.

Firudin Azerbaijani

The undisputed authority in the Shāfiʿī school, Ibn Ḥajar (d. 974), mentions some phrases that, when uttered, may lead to fearing that a person is renouncing their faith. One of them that echos across time is: “I just want money, regardless of it being ḥalāl or ḥarām!”

Modern mozlems when an action is stigmatised and considered very negatively in popular western culture:

"According to Shari'ah he should be executed (even when it's not true) in the most painful way, and he will definitely go to hell forever!!".

Modern mozlems when a crime is played down or not even considered as such in popular western culture:

"Actschuallyyy there is no prescribed punishment for it (even if there is), you don't know what's in his heart, only Allah can judge!".


Once upon a time there were discussion with the mu'tazilah about the issue of tahsin and taqbih aqli, nowadays we should address the tahsin and taqbih gharbi.

Similar to the differences between Maturidis and Mutazilis regarding tahsin and taqbih aqli; modernists also divide themselves on their tahsin and taqbih gharbi:
-for pure modernists, something is good or bad purely because the west says so, and Shari'ah has to adapt to it.
-for cope apologetic mozlems, what is good or bad according to the west always "miraculously" coincide with (their twisting of) Shari'ah, and "that's why Islam is true!".

It is a dangerous illusion to think that one is doing daʿwah by furthering the Dajjalic “western Muslim” assimilation project; self-proclaimed “Muslims” in the west hold more hostility towards Orthodox Islām than even the kuffār that they are desperately trying to appease.

If we could have the Ṣaḥābah back in this world, in this current era, to assist the Muslims and correct our faults and errors, most people who claim Islām today would call them corruptors and extremists.