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.

“WE CAN’T [insert basic agreed upon Islamic ruling] BECAUSE IT BECOMES AN OBSTACLE FOR DAʿWAH IN THE WEST!”

The western “Daʿwah”:

“However, Tashkoprüzade (d. 962 AH / 1554 CE) pointed out the necessity of distinction, with regards to the objective, between ʿilm al-kalām and falsafa. The mutakallim, he relies on what has come in the religion in terms of beliefs, then seeks rational proofs to support them. The philosopher seeks with his mind [first], and sees what he has reached in terms of evidences without looking at what has come in the religion. The mutakallim believes then proves, and the philosopher proves then believes."

— al-Insān wal-ʿAql, Pg: 75

How’s your throat, Charlie?

#CharlieSquirt 😵🩸

“It may be observed by one who studies epistemological philosophy among Western philosophers in general that they did not depart from two paths in their inquiry into knowledge: the Platonic rationalist path and the Epicurean empiricist path. Whatever they added—here and there—amounted to no more than explanation and clarification, or limited attempts to fill the gaps they had noticed in Greek philosophy. Yet, they failed—just as their predecessors had failed before them—to present a comprehensive conception regarding the mind, its method of thinking, and the acquisition of human knowledge—from its beginning, through its course, and to its end.”

— al-Insān wal-ʿAql, Pg. 107

There are these widespread distortions that claim that one is only a kāfir if they:

1) Hear all about Islām in detail and THEN outright reject it.

2) Reject Islām after KNOWING that it is true.

Both of these positions are kufr.

الجامع لاحكام القران (تفسير القرطبي) ، ٥/٧٦ ، ط. الرسالة العالمية