One of the things I always say to those who raise doubts in the "women" topic to justify atheism or attack religious constants:

Do you want us to deify the modern woman, make her whims a judgment over Allah and His Messenger, and destroy every good meaning we know for the sake of hormonal urges?

It was just a metaphor, until I saw this title:

"Real Men Worship Women: A Gentleman's Guide to Loving & Obeying Women" (A Woman-Led Relationship)

By Marisa Rudder, a well-known author in the field of relationships.

Notice her use of the word "worship" instead of "obey", and her use of "real men" and "noble man", those floating terms used for conditioning. They say: a real man has such and such traits, and the woman chooses only what serves her interest.

Her style is widely followed on social media in our context, even if it doesn’t reach her level of audacity.

She starts from the reality that absolute equality in relationships, based on supposed partnership, is pure myth.

And this is only an initial step toward conditioning men.

Then you are told: let the woman lead, and there is no relationship between the sexes without a leader.

But Allah Almighty contradicted them when He said:

Men are the caretakers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they spend from their wealth.

(4:34)

Consider His words: “and because they spend”. Today, you find titles like: a man has no right to touch a woman’s salary, and he is obligated to spend on her!

And what does he get in return? Does he get authority and obedience?

No, he gets partnership!

In the past, a servant did not ask his master about his wealth, and the master asked his servant about his earnings and took from him. In return, the master would feed, clothe, house, and marry off the servant.

But now, there is a person to whom you are committed in many ways, and he is committed to you in return through mere "partnership", this approaches what Marisa is talking about!

Even the right of sexual intimacy, on which all these matters hinge, and which is also a benefit to the woman, has become a point of contention on all atheist sites, a doubt against the texts of warning concerning a rebellious wife who does not give her husband his rightful due, because they object to him claiming “his right.”

It is ironic that this doubt spreads in an era where women most often imprison their husbands based on biased laws.

She imprisons him and files dozens of cases against him, then fills the world with noise over the issue of “unjustified beating”!

What is amusing is that the designer of Marisa’s book cover, when he wanted to depict a woman leading a man, dressed her in a man’s clothing, gave her a male body, and a female-faced idol!

The sound academic method is to attribute a report to the highest authenticated source, not to sit and narrate chains and attestations and then end up behaving like common folk.

Abū Ubayd said in al-Īmān:

30 – [...] from Abū Sufyān, who said: I stayed with Jābir bin 'Abdillāh in Makkah for six months. A man asked him: Did you use to call anyone from the people of the qiblah a disbeliever? He said: God forbid. He said: Then would you call him a polytheist? He replied: No.”

Jābir bin 'Abdillāh here means the non-takfīr of those guilty of sins among the people of Islam, not the non-takfīr of actual disbelievers. The Khawārij used to declare sinners to be disbelievers.

Otherwise, the Companions declared the followers of Musaylimah and the withholding faction to be disbelievers, even though all of them prayed.

Clarifying this intent is what Muḥammad bin Naṣr narrated in Tadhīm Qadr al-Ṣalāh:

893 – [...] from Jābir bin 'Abdillāh, Companion of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, who said: I asked him: What was, in your view, the dividing line between disbelief and faith among deeds in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ? He said: The prayer.

This report is authentic, and it has corroboration.

Ibn Abī Āṣim said in al-Sunnah:

“976 – [... from] Sulaymān bin Qays al-Yashkurī [...] said: I asked Jābir bin 'Abdillāh: Did you consider sins to be shirk? He said: God forbid; we did not claim that there was any polytheist among those who prayed.”

This report was graded weak by al-Albānī because he considered some of its narrators unknown. His student al-Jawābirah graded it ḥasan after correctly identifying the narrator and establishing his truthfulness.

In any case, the previous reports bear witness to its meaning.

And Muḥammad bin Naṣr said in Tadhīm Qadr al-Ṣalāh:

889 – [...] from Wahb ibn Munabbih. He said: This is what I asked Jābir bin 'Abdillāh [...] about, and he informed me. I asked him: Among those who pray, were there any Tawāghīt? He said: No. I asked him: Was there among them anyone who was a mushrik? He said: No. And he informed me that he heard the Prophet ﷺ say: Between shirk and kufr is abandoning the prayer. And I asked him: Did you consider sins to be shirk? He said: God forbid; we did not consider anyone who prayed to be a mushrik.”

This is a comprehensive report that gathers the meaning of the two earlier ones: that the people of the qiblah, according to him, are the people of prayer.

Muḥammad bin Naṣr used this report as evidence for the takfīr of the one who abandons prayer.

And similar to prayer are all actions that constitute actual disbelief: insulting Allāh, calling upon other than Him, declaring the Companions disbelievers, and slandering the Mother of the Believers.

As for sins that do not reach kufr, what is meant are the widespread major sins among Muslims such as murder, theft, fornication, and others.

Worse than declaring people disbelievers due to sins is declaring them disbelievers for the truth[!!] like many followers of the al-Jafrī school who declare as disbelievers those who affirm that Allah is above (meaning: that He is above the heavens).

And some of them declare as disbelievers those who say that the parents of the Prophet ﷺ are in the Fire, and they circulate a fatwa attributed to Ibn al-Arabī on that. They should be admonished along with others, rather than offering selective admonition.

A 15-year-old boy assaulted a young girl until she died. He was treated as a minor, and therefore the punishment was not severe.

Most feminists and many women were angered by the ruling, to the point that some began calling for changes to the law.

What they fail to understand is that responsibility matches capacity. Just as a girl at that age would not be held accountable like an adult, the same applies to a boy.

The matter is not selective or driven by whims and greed. Even if he were 18, international human-rights organizations, without dispute among them, would reject the death penalty altogether. Most likely he would simply go to prison for a period decided by the court.

They treat human-rights conventions the way a believer treats revelation.

And they praise prisons in some countries as if they were hotels.

So the conclusion is this: the rapist-killer will end up in a “hotel” of discipline and reform!

If you said: executing this young man will not bring that little girl back to life,

and this is a minor who was not fully aware of his actions, and he might reform and become a useful taxpayer from whom the state benefits.

It may sound harsh and cold, but this is how human laws are formed under the capitalist system.

And if people are not convinced, the scarecrow of human rights is raised until anyone who disagrees is painted as a monster with no regard for humanity, and in such contexts, matters become as clear as they should.

“and had it been from other than Allah, they would have found in it much contradiction.” [al-Nisā' 82]

Among the proposed reforms, preventing gender-mixing was not even considered; they focused only on the punishment.

Yet early mixing can be extremely dangerous, because many children cross the threshold of puberty while their peers have not, which leads to problems and calamities, including incidents like this one.

Crimes committed by “minors” are many around the world. Recently, a child in Japan killed his classmate at school and stated during interrogation that he was aware he would not receive a harsh punishment because he is a minor!

One of the most troubling issues in this context is the framing of the niqab as a “female choice,” by which a woman who wears the niqab is made equivalent to one who is immodest or even naked.

The correct understanding is that the niqab is an act of worship and a virtue, in accordance with sound human nature. The covering of women is something that people universally agree is virtuous, because a woman, by her physical appearance, can arouse desire in men.

The highest value, therefore, is not “female freedom,” but rather the worship of Allah and the virtue of modest covering.

Likewise, if a woman’s cross were cut off, the matter would not be viewed solely from the angle of freedom. The niqab is more sacred than national dress for women or men, which no one objects to, because national dress is merely a cultural inheritance, whereas this is an act of worship.

India is a country that lives with deep contradictions regarding women: a well-known cultural legacy that involves contempt for women, alongside a brutal legal system put in place by Westernized elites who sought to “balance” matters, but instead only increased tension.

(According to statistics from past years, the National Crime Bureau recorded the murder of one bride every hour, totaling nine thousand brides per year, due to the non-payment of the full dowry owed to the groom’s family.

According to those statistics, women make up 48.2% of India’s population, approximately six hundred million women. However, sociologists have warned of a decline in the number of women compared to men, with the ratio reaching about 940 females for every 1,000 males.

More alarming is what the statistics revealed regarding children aged 1–6 years, where the number dropped to around 919 females for every 1,000 males.

Human rights organizations considered this a real danger threatening the lives of females in India, prompting the central government and state governments to launch various campaigns encouraging the acceptance of female newborns.)

This is taken from an article titled:

“9 Gender-Biased Indian Laws That Are Unfair Towards Men”

All of this exists alongside a strange legal system that is biased in favor of females, yet Indian feminist organizations do not stop complaining.

Among these laws: the mother inherits the property of the deceased, while the father does not inherit.

Among these laws: a son is not entitled to financial support after reaching the age of 18, whereas a daughter continues to be supported by her father until she marries. In truth, this is not greatly objected to from our perspective, since a male child is required to provide maintenance and dowry, and once he achieves economic independence he stops asking his father for support; this is not tied to a specific age.

Among these laws: if a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, he is prosecuted, but if a woman commits adultery with another woman’s husband, she is not prosecuted.

Among these laws: if a man promises a woman marriage and she allows him intimacy, he is considered a rapist and is punished, while she is not.

Among these laws: if a young man aged 16 engages in a consensual relationship with a girl of his own age, he is punished and she is not, because he is deemed a rapist.

If a woman’s death results from burns or bodily injury within seven years of marriage, the husband is considered at fault. This is, in truth, a very strange law.

Thus, man-made laws are either unjust in favor of men or unjust in favor of women, and you will not find the like of revelation.

You hear about Christmas everywhere. People across the entire world celebrate it. The word Christmas comes from the Old English phrase Cristes Maesse. It means the Mass of Christ. Christians treat it as one of their most important celebrations. They observe it on thr 25th of December. They believe it marks the birth of their god, Jesus Christ.

You may hear some Muslims say Christians celebrate the birth of Prophet 'Isa, son of Mary. That is not accurate. Christians celebrate what they believe is the birth of God Himself والعياذ بالله.

You should know this date has no basis in the original Christian scriptures. The Gospel never mentions the 25th of December. The details in the Gospel actually contradict a winter birth. In the Qur'ān, Allāh mentions Maryam receiving fresh ripe dates during childbirth. Dates ripen in summer.

Early Christians did not celebrate Jesus' birth at all. They viewed birthday celebrations as pagan and they did not know the actual date of the birth. So, they chose a date already marked by pagan festivals.

The 25th of December comes from a pagan winter solstice celebration. Romans honored their sun god, Sol Invictus, on this day. They believed it marked his birth or his victory over darkness. Church leaders later adopted the date. They wanted to convert pagan communities without fighting their customs. This change became official in the fourth century at the Council of Nicaea in the year three hundred twenty five. That same council established the doctrine of the Trinity and rejected monotheism.

Even today, Christians disagree on the date. Orthodox churches celebrate on the 7th of January. Armenian churches celebrate on the 6th of January.

You also see many Christmas customs that did not start with Christianity. Romans celebrated Saturnalia in December. During it, they gave gifts and lit candles. Europeans decorated their homes with lights and evergreen plants during the winter solstice. They believed this drove away evil spirits. Druids treated mistletoe as a magical plant. They linked it to tree worship and the return of the sun. Decorating trees existed long before Christianity. Pagans did it as part of their worship.

Santa Claus traces back to St. Nicholas. He was a priest who opposed monotheistic beliefs. He attended the Council of Nicaea. Historical reports say he struck Arius, a scholar who argued Jesus was created and not divine. Church leaders later honored Nicholas as a saint. He used to give gifts secretly to poor children around December sixth. The church merged this custom with December twenty fifth to help people accept the holiday. The modern image of Santa looks nothing like the real man. The image of him riding reindeer connects to older pagan gods of thunder and forests. Those gods once received human sacrifices.

The Christmas tree has even older roots. Pagan tribes worshipped evergreen trees because they stayed green all year. Some of them sacrificed children by tying them to these trees. They worshipped a tree after Satan spoke through it. Allāh later destroyed them. In the eighth century, a missionary named Boniface tried to rebrand the tree by placing a star on top. For centuries after that, many churches and governments banned the tree. They saw it as dangerous pagan worship. The custom spread globally after Queen Victoria and Prince Albert displayed a decorated tree in the nineteenth century. When new Muslims once asked the Prophet Muhammad to assign them a sacred tree like the pagans had, he strongly rebuked them. He compared their request to the Israelites asking for an idol.

Now listen carefully to the Islamic ruling. Scholars agree you must not take part in non Islamic religious holidays. You must not congratulate others for them either. Congratulation shows approval. The Prophet once stopped a man from fulfilling a vow in a place used for pagan festivals. He taught clear separation from shirk. Early scholars explained the verse about avoiding falsehood as avoiding the holidays of polytheists. Scholars said any help in their holidays supports shirk.

When the final prohibition of wine was revealed, the Ṣaḥābah abandoned it instantly, pouring it into the streets. Their faith outweighed desire, proving that Imān is stronger than any "addiction". They didn’t delay or make excuses; true obedience means immediate submission to Allah’s command, regardless of habit, attachment or "addiction".

The brother was hit with a catastrophe today, إِنَّا لِلَّهِ وَإِنَّآ إِلَيْهِ رَٰجِعُون.

He said:

Wallahi my brother, we are in a very painful situation right now. Our house caught fire and everything inside was burned. We lost all our belongings, and now we don’t even have a place to stay.

My younger brother was sleeping in the room when the fire started without his knowledge. Alhamdulillah he is still alive, but his hand was badly injured and he is in the hospital now. He has not received proper treatment yet, and he is in severe pain.

Wallahi this situation is very hard for us, and I am reaching out to you with humility. If you are able to help us financially in any way, it would mean so much to us during this difficult time. May Allah reward you for every help and kindness you show.

JazakAllahu khairan, my brother.

Contact him here to help: @momodou12