Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami Rahimahullah states in his Hashiyyah on Fath al-Jawaad Bi Sharh Matn al-Irshad, in the chapters of Nikah under his own statement : “It is sunnah for him [the wali] to present the woman in his custody to the pious men [with the objective of marriage]”. [Ibn Hajar states]: “From amongst the requisites of their piety is that they possess such ghayrah which compels them to utmost protection of their wives, and to protect them from places of doubt, even if the doubts are very far fetched. As for one who is not like this [does not possess that level of ghayrah], then it is not appropriate to present the woman to him, rather it is not even appropriate to marry her to him even though he may request it, and although he may have reached the pinnacle of piety and knowledge, as the wali who is happy with this, is pleased with the woman in his guardianship to be in eternal disgrace. This is because most women, when they do not see the utmost ghayrah from their husbands, and protection over them, and they do not see them preventing them from those things which cause doubt, even though they may be far fetched and weak reasons of doubt, this laxity from his side will cause her to fall into such a disgrace, the ugliness of which is endless. Understand this as it is the most important of important matters.”

But your modern "Imams" and "Shuyookh" will tell you that if you show ghayrah, then you are being controlling and toxic. Look at the statement of an Alim living in Darul Islam under a legitimate Khilafah, and compare it with the statements of the "compassionate" imams, and you will have no choice but to realize the necessity of hijrah and of establishing Khilafah. The only solution to societal problems is in Islam, and Islam can only be practiced completely under a Khilafah.
فافهم فإنه مهم

A clip from AlMaghrib Institute, publicizing Fanāʾ al-Nār, referring to it as “a legitimate opinion”.

This position is kufr and contradicts what is maʿlūm min al-Dīn bil-Ḍarūrah. Anyone who holds this view, or considers it valid to hold, is a kāfir.

“Why isn’t Palestine free yet, guys?” 😑

Here we have Yasir Qadhi discussing the topic of Fanāʾ al-Nār, where he:

- Defends the position and insists that it is not heretical.
- Refers to it as “a very legitimate opinion”.
- Advocates for it to be promoted amongst the masses.

Just a reminder that if you are taking your Dīn from Instagram Reels and/or TikTok, it is highly unlikely that you meet the bare minimum requirements of being Muslim.

Too many of you are easily impressed by modernist zandaqah under the garb of (pseudo-)intellectualism.

The irony is that those spewing this filth claim some “higher metaphysics”. In reality, they’ve been so ideologically r@ped that they don’t even understand the fundamentals.

قال الشيخ الشعراني في «بهجة النفوس والأحداق فيما تميز به القوم من الآداب والأخلاق»:
«ومنها شدة بغضهم لكل من أمرهم الله تعالى بمعاداته من الكفار والظلمة، ولو كانوا من أشد الناس اعتقاداً إليهم، إيثاراً لجناب الحق تعالى على حظ نفوسهم... وإياك أن تميل إلى كافر إذا رايته يحفر آبار السبيل، أو يعمل طعاماً ويرسله للمحابيس، أو يطيب الناس ويحصل على يديه الشفاء ولا يأخذ على ذلك أجرة، ونحو ذلك؛ فإن الله لا يرضى عن كافرٍ ولو فعل ما فعل من الخيرات، بل هو عدوٌّ له، فكيف يليق به أن يوالي عدوه أو يحبه؟!». اهـ

Authentic Tasawwuf teaches hatred for kufr and kuffar.

Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri:

“It is astonishing that those infatuated with the West regard as impossible for Allāh’s power what they deem possible for the power of the West.
If asked whether medical advancements could one day resurrect the dead, they would affirm it without hesitation—yet if the same were attributed to Allah, their minds would deny it and declare it inconceivable.”

Three deadly assumptions of conspiracy theorism:

-"We should never do that to you" (distortion of actual fiqh, apologetics of "loyalty" to harbi States).

-"We would never do that to you" (reification of quietism and impotency).

-"We could never do that to you" (deification of the enemy as invulnerable, omnipotent and all-knowing).

I don’t care for “world peace” if there is no Khilāfah.

There is no world peace until Sharīʿah governs the entire world.

"Many Muslims today, when they hear someone stress the need for ethics, worldview, and ideological grounding before chasing technology, immediately respond with irritation or mockery. Why? Because for nearly two centuries the Muslim world has been fed a very specific narrative: “The West is powerful because of science and technology, you are weak because you lack it, so imitate them.” Colonialism didn’t just conquer lands; it conquered imaginations. It created a reflex where technological power is seen as the only route to dignity, while questions of values, ethics, or metaphysics are dismissed as distractions or excuses for “backwardness.”

That knee-jerk reaction is therefore not really about tech itself, it’s about a psychological wound. Seeing Muslim societies politically humiliated and militarily powerless, many internalized the belief that our decline is simply due to being “behind” in inventions, rockets, or medicine. So when someone suggests that the real issue is ideological capitulation, our worldview being subverted, our politics derailed, our ethics hollowed out, it clashes with this inherited inferiority complex. It feels uncomfortable, even threatening, because it undermines the comforting myth that “if we just build rockets like NASA, we’ll rise again.” In reality, the West’s dominance was never just about machines, it was about structuring the entire world system to their worldview. But to admit that means admitting that the harder task lies ahead: rebuilding Muslim intellectual, ethical, and political foundations, not just copying gadgets.

Of course, Muslims absolutely need technology. Buthere’s the distinction: tech should be a servant of a worldview, not the worldview itself. The danger comes when Muslims think that mere accumulation of inventions, weapons, or space programs automatically translates into power and dignity. The West has nukes, aircraft carriers, satellites, and yet look at Gaza: their machines serve their politics and ideology, not the other way around. If Muslims were to “catch up” in tech without first rebuilding a coherent Islamic vision, that same tech would simply be co-opted by the same elites, regimes, and interests that already serve colonial-capitalist structures, not the Ummah".

https://x.com/islamicize/status/1962246527193080256?t=i-wogR3UOVpRnwR9lEyOnA&s=19

"Female education" has both ideological roots and concrete outcomes, that always get ignored by the "pro-female education" scholars who still think that the ban on female education has "no basis in Islam" and who get entangled in technicalities such as "is it lawful for a woman to hold a pen in her hands, sit on a chair, open a book and memorise the multiplication tables?" (and we'll ignore for a moment that there is actual ikhtilaf even on teaching a woman how to read and write!), while totally losing the bigger picture of what does this XIX-century Europeam institution of mass public schooling lead to and what it is programmed towards.

The ideological root is based in the liberal beliefs of gender equality, according to which whatever a male can do, a woman has the right to do as well, with no difference or "discrimination" (other than a woman placing a foulard on her hair, which "magically" makes it "Islamic" ) .

And such belief is obviously at odds with the most basic and essential Islamic teachings, values and rules about gender roles, responsibilities, obligations and prohibitions, that clearly place women in roles different from men's, and dependant on them, and away from public roles.

So, the ideological roots are in kufric ideologies of gender equality that nullify one's Islam.

As for the practical outcome, there is no result out of female education other than postponing marriage and postponing and reducing fertility, the unlawful emergence of women out of their houses, leading them towards occupation and career, "empowering" them and giving them "equal say in the family by bringing bread to the table", destroying the balance of gender roles in family and society, opening to female presence in public society, and many other negative effects.

Now, "female education" is thus defended both by people who are unaware of all the above, and by others who are fully aware of it, and in fact use it as their first and foremost propaganda tool against Muslims and Islamic concepts.

In the former group (if we want to be ultra-charitable and close our eyes on their "islamizing modernity" we can place many of the salafi-ikhwani izlaamists who acritically repeat the (absolutely baseless) Abduhist slogan about female education being an "Islam right and obligation"), and who are mostly just motivated by the outrage of showing that "NoOoOo the ban on female education is not from Islam, it's just CuLtUrAl/Pashtunwali".

The latter camp - the one of those who are fully aware of its results - is that of feminists, communists, liberals, capitalists, "human rights" defenders, "development/progress" propagandists, etc., whose entire objective is the destruction of the social fabric, family institution, male/father/husband authority, fertility, early marriage, female dependance, through "female empowerment/emancipation", and who waved such slogans of "education and EmPoWeRmEnT" as justification for the very military occupation that the first group claims to oppose, only to share the same vision of "educated strong independent empowered women", just, ...with a foulard over their masculine frankenstain tailleur, of course.

Truly an underrated scholar. I was fortunate enough to get ahold of some of his works.

He has this one book on kalām and philosophy that goes in depth on the topic of the human intellect. The book was published in 1995, before kalām was revived by the more famous contemporaries.