Muslim men, stay strong, and do not cave to the system.
Don’t cave to the system’s conception of “modern masculinity,” i.e., being a simp.
Don’t cave to vague and vacuous notions of “toxic masculinity.”
Don’t cave to feminism or being “an ally.”
Don’t cave to the expectation that you place the entire genus of womankind on a pedestal.
Don’t cave to the modern demand that you become emasculated and effeminate.
Don’t cave to the dictate that you live in your feelings.
Don’t cave to accusations that your masculinity is “dangerous” or “toxic” or “scary.”
Don’t cave to the mistranslation and distortion of men being “qawwamun” over women (الرجال قوامون على النساء) means merely being their “maintainers,” i.e., the servants of women rather than authorities over them.
Men have whole charge over their wives, because Allah has favored the one above the other, and because they have spent well of their wealth: So righteous women are lovingly obedient, dutifully keeping everything secure when their husbands are gone through Allah’s own protection; While those who you fear may show rude defiance, first patiently admonish them, then draw away from them in bed, and failing all else, you may finally even strike them: And if they return to obedience, seek no way against them: Verily was Allah ever exalted in might over you, supreme in greatness. (Qur’an, 4:34)
Don’t cave to social pressure urging you to seek out a “strong, empowered, independent, highly educated career woman” to marry so she can help you pay the bills.
Don’t cave to the claim that you marrying the traditional type of woman, the kind you really want to marry, means that you are somehow “insecure” or “intimidated” by the stunning amazingness of modern feminists.
Don’t cave to the popular sentiment that gender roles are oppressive.
Don’t cave to the ridiculous notion that you, as the husband, must bend over backwards to cater to your wife’s every whim and desire or that you are required to fulfill her every fancy.
Don’t cave to the expectations for you to step aside and let your wife wear the pants in the relationship.
Don’t cave to the pressure of the weaponized feelings and tears of women that are meant to hold you hostage.
Don’t cave to the demands that you become a dayyuth without honor or masculine protective jealousy over your women.
Don’t cave to the prevalent trend of becoming sedentary, complacent and distracted by useless time-wasting activities such as video games or screens over those that actually increase your masculine vigor, vitality and virtue.
Don’t cave to the call for androgyny.
Don’t abdicate your male authority or your masculine role for anything or anyone. You will have to stand alone before Allah and answer for how well you fulfilled your responsibilities as leader, authority, provider, protector and imam over your family, community and society.
So stay strong, manly, assertive, determined, brave, principled, confident, stoic, responsible, unyielding against injustoce and illicit behaviors. Stay fully within your leadership role and masculine frame.
Don’t cave to the system which seeks to strip you entirely of all your natural traits and strives to warp your fitrah (natural, innate disposition).
So please don’t cave.
We, the traditional women, are counting on you to remain traditional men.
In the current day and age of widespread Feminism, there are many females who target and attack the ḥijāb. However, it may come as a shock to many that the seeds for this terrible sickness are also being planted by the famous male ḥadīth rejecter, Javed Ghamidi. In fact, his poison on this topic has spread to a considerable degree, and women use his position to discard the ḥijāb.
Let us first take a look at the view of Javed Ghamidi, which he has stated time and again. He has explained it in different ways, sometimes in brief and on other occasions, in greater detail.
Question: Is ḥijāb important or is it by choice?
Answer: At night, I explained in detail, and according to my recollection, I have mentioned this hundreds of times. In our religion, there are two types of issues. If you look at the content of the religion, it comprises of two types of issues. One type comprises of all those things that have been made obligatory. We refer to them as farḍ, sometimes as wājib, i.e., they have been made obligatory or binding.
What does this mean? It means that Allāh Ta’ālā has obligated us to do them. If we will do them, Allāh Ta’ālā will reward us. If we do not carry them out, he will take us to task. For example, the thirty fasts of Ramaḍān. This has been made obligatory upon the Muslims.
Then there are some things that are not made obligatory, but Allāh Ta’ālā says that He prefers and likes them and that they should be carried out. So, those things that are good, they fall into the second category. If you carry them out, it will be good. For example, there are 4 Rak’ats in the farḍ of Ẓuhr Ṣalāh. Or, there are 2 Rak’ats of Ṣalāh that are farḍ in Fajr. One must perform them in every condition. One must present himself before Allāh Ta’ālā. However, you performed 2 Rak’ats of optional Ṣalāh together with it. This is up to you, if you want to, you can perform them. If you do not want to, then you do not have to perform them. In matters of worship, this is referred to as Nafl, i.e., optional. In general issues, they are referred to as Mustaḥabb. This is the positive angle of the religion.
The negative angle is that some things are forbidden – prohibited – and are not permitted. There are some things that are Makrūh, i.e., disliked.
So, there are two categories in each angle, i.e., positive and negative in the obligations, and positive and negative in the prohibitions.
So, in general conditions, women, i.e., the condition where women are obligated by Allāh Ta’ālā, when they go to the marketplace, when they go to work, or they are in the house, or wherever, they should wear modest clothing, lower their gazes, and protect their private parts. Men have been instructed to do the same. Men and women have been commanded equally in this regard. There is no other restriction besides this.
However, you know that women love beauty and adornment. They have a flair to wear jewelry, beautify themselves and so on. If they dress in this way, not in normal dress, they are not in a normal position, then in this case, Allāh Ta’ālā tells them to cover themselves, and so, besides the face, hands and feet, they should cover themselves. This will be binding when they adorn themselves and beautify themselves. If they are not adorned and beautified, then the question arises: Should they wear the dupatta or scarf all the time? The answer is that it is something good, something liked, but not obligatory. This is the entire religion.
«And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allāh in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed»[2]
«O Nabī, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allāh Forgiving and Merciful»[3]
Ṣafiyyah bint Shaybah reports that ‘Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā used to say: When these words were revealed – “and to draw their veils all over Juyūbihinna (i.e., their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” – they took their izārs (a kind of garment) and tore them from the edges and covered their faces with them.[4]
This report clearly refutes the lies spun by Javed Ghamidi. There is no mention of normal conditions and conditions where the Ṣaḥābiyyāt raḍiyallāhu ‘anhunn beautified themselves. The command was given and they immediately carried it out.
Ibn Ḥajar raḥimahullāh said in Fatḥ al-Bārī:
There is a report of Ibn Abī Hatim via ‘Abd-Allāh ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Khaytham from Safiyyah that explains this. The report says: We mentioned the women of Quraysh and their virtues in the presence of ‘Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā and she said: “The women of Quraysh are good, but by Allāh I have never seen any better than the women of the Anṣār, or any who believed the Book of Allāh more strongly, or had more faith in the Revelation. When Sūrat al-Nūr was revealed – “and to draw their veils all over Juyūbihinna (i.e., their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” – their menfolk came to them and recited to them what had been revealed, and there was not one woman among them who did not go to her apron, and the following morning they prayed wrapped up as if there were crows on their heads.
It was also narrated clearly in the report of al-Bukhārī narrated above, where we see ‘Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā, who was so knowledgeable and pious, praising them in this manner and stating that she had never seen any women who believed the Book of Allāh more strongly or had more faith in the Revelation. This clearly indicates that they understood from this verse – “and to draw their veils all over Juyūbihinna (i.e., their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” – that it was obligatory to cover their faces and that this stemmed from their belief in the Book of Allāh and their faith in the Revelation. It also indicates that women observing ḥijāb in front of men, and covering their faces, is an act of belief in the Book of Allāh and faith in the Revelation. It is very strange indeed that some of those who claim to have knowledge say that there is nothing in the Qur’ān or Sunnah that says that women have to cover their faces in front of non-maḥram men, even though the Ṣaḥabiyyāt did that in obedience to the command of Allāh in His Book, out of faith in the Revelation, and that this meaning is also firmly entrenched in the Sunnah, as in the report from al-Bukhārī quoted above. This is among the strongest evidence that all Muslim women are obliged to observe ḥijāb.[5]
«O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Nabī except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Nabī, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allāh is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allāh or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allāh an enormity»[6]
‘Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā narrated: “The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam in iḥrām, and when they drew near to us, we would lower our jilbabs from our heads over our faces, then when they had passed, we would uncover them again.[7]
Asma bint Abi Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā said: We used to cover our faces in front of men.[8]
These authentic reports are clear in their purport. We can make out from them that Javed Ghamidi has tried, and continues to try, pushing his evil plot on uncovering the women for all and sundry to gape and gaze at. He has deceitfully employed a tactic of dividing the laws of Islām according to his own whims and fancies, without reference to any of the great scholars of Islām. By doing this, he has removed the importance of the law as a whole from the minds and hearts of his audience. This is a tactic employed by Modernists to undermine and destroy the sharī’ah – which is noble and pure and held in the highest regard by Muslims worldwide. The sad part of the whole issue is that he has lied and continues to lie about it, by saying, ‘There is no other restriction besides this.’
He twists and distorts the purport of obligations and then adds his own conditions for practice. It is part of the nature of women to dress up and adorn themselves when going out of the home, and it is at that very juncture that Javed Ghamidi attempts to make sure that they leave uncovered. Women adorn and beautify themselves for the very purpose of gaining the approval of onlookers, and here, Javed Ghamidi says that it will be ‘a good thing’ if they wear ḥijāb after adorning themselves to go out. What kind of twisted thinking is this? It seems he believes that everyone is as foolish as he is.
May Allāh Ta’ālā save us from such devious and evil ploys. Āmīn.
The other day, over breakfast, the kids and I were discussing the issue of inflation.
Well, not quite actually.
None of these kids are over the age of ten. However, we did converse about the rising prices of goods and services.
My 7-year-old asked:
“Mama, why do you buy this brand of milk and not the old brand you used to get from the other grocery store?”
I explained to them how product prices had increased.
The kids then debated amongst themselves about the appropriate prices for different food items, calling out crazy numbers for milk, cheese, eggs and bread as I listened on in amusement.
Then, my 8-year-old declared:
“If I had a grocery store, I’d sell everything there for free! People can just come and take whatever they want!”
The sheer innocence and purity of heart made me smile. I replied to him, saying:
“That’s very nice of you, but that’s not really a business model that would work. This is because you need to spend money to buy all the things in your store.”
We spoke about the concept of ribh (profit), which the kids recalled well from the sirah.
The 10-year-old commented:
“Yeah, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم made the most amount of profit when he went to Ash-Sham with Khadijah’s caravan. He did the best out of all the tujjar (traders/ businessmen) who traded for her.”
My 8-year-old is particularly soft-hearted and generous. He understood the concept of buying and selling and the importance of making a profit, but he still felt compelled to help people.
“Well, fine. I’ll make everything in my store one dollar. That should make a bit of money.”
So I said:
“Yes, but probably not enough. Each item will cost you more than just one dollar to buy yourself, so if you sell it for a dollar, you’re incurring a loss and still making no profit.”
I paused and considered taking another approach, saying:
“How would you provide for your wife and children?”
He grinned at me and said immediately without skipping a beat,
“…أبقي لَهُمُ اللَّهَ ورسولَهُ”
“I leave for them Allah and His Messenger…”
I laughed and gave my wonderful boy a hug. He was quoting Sayyiduna Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه.
When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم encouraged the Sahaba to contribute towards gathering money before one of the battles, the Muslims all pitched in.
Sayyiduna `Umar رضي الله عنه arrived with half of all his wealth and gave that in charity.
Soon thereafter, Sayyiduna Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه arrived with ALL of his wealth to give in charity.
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم asked Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه:
“يا أبا بَكرٍ ما أبقَيتَ لأَهْلِكَ؟”
“And what did you leave for your family, O Abu Bakr?”
Sayyiduna Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه, whose heart is ever full of iman and complete tawakkul, replied:
“…أبقيتُ لَهُمُ اللَّهَ ورسولَهُ”
“I left for them Allah and His Messenger…” (Jami’ al-Tirmidhi)
My dear fellow parents, the things you teach your children and the stories that you tell them will remain with them.
Tell your children the best, the most beautiful and the most wholesome of stories—the lives and times of the blessed final Prophet, Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and his amazing Sahabah.
Q. A shaikh who follows the tareeqah of Hadhrat Maulana Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh), but who is not an Aalim, encourages females to attend university. He also invites women to attend his majaalis. He says that Hadhrat Thanvi also used to give bayaans to women. He points out that there are many benefits for women in his talks. Are his views valid?
A. Regardless of the perceived ‘benefits’ of the majaalis for females, it is not permissible to lure women from their homes to attend gatherings of any kind whatsoever. There is benefit in liquor and gambling as well. Everything on earth has both benefits and harms, advantages and disadvantages. Our criterion is the Shariah. The Fuqaha have emphasized this prohibition with clarity on the basis of the prohibition of females attending the Musjid despite the fact that during the era of our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) women were allowed to attend the Musjid.
The shaikh sahib lacks foresight and baseerat. Assuming that Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) did have majaalis for women, then too, it in no way whatsoever cancels what the Fuqaha have ruled. The personal amal of Hadhrat Maulana Thanvi does not abrogate any tenet of the Shariah. The personal practice of Hadhrat Thanvi may not be presented as a daleel for an act which is in conflict with the Shar’i view which has reached us from the age of the Sahaabah.
A conflicting view/practice of an accepted Aalim/Wali shall be given a suitable interpretation, if possible, to reconcile it with the Shariah. If such an interpretation is not possible, it shall be set aside and not propagated nor acted on. But never is it permissible to cite it as a daleel for any practice which is in conflict with the Shariah.
The argument of “women would also come to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)” was better understood by the Sahaabah and the Aimmah Mujtahideen. Despite their awareness, they decreed that it is not permissible for women to emerge from their homes to participate in even the best and noblest gathering, namely, the Fardh Salaat, and at the best and noblest venue, namely the Musjid.
We are not aware if women would attend the majaalis of Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh). Nevertheless, the final word is the Shariah, not the amal of any Wali/Buzrug/Mufti, which happens to be in conflict with the Shariah.
Even if there are separate facilities, women may not attend any majaalis. Furthermore, in our present age, almost all the women are able to read and write. There is literature available in abundance for Islamic learning. Almost all of them are experts with the computer. They write to Ulama for masaa-il. We as well as other Ulama receive innumerable letters from females on Deeni issues.
A JAAHIL’S STUPID OPINION REGARDING WOMEN AND THE QABRUSTAAN
It is Haraam for females to visit the Qabrustaan. A miscreant, Solomon Ravat in his kuffaar bootlicking exercise, attempted to convey the very opposite idea: that it is permissible. In this regard, a Brother narrates:
“At a state funeral, a non-Muslim reporter asked Sulaiman Ravat of Radio Devil about the Islamic stance regarding the presence of women at the cemetery.
“Reporter: I don’t know if you will be able to speak on this, but, what I understand is that ordinarily females will not be allowed at the cemetery. But, today we see there’s something different with regards to today’s proceedings considering that you have a struggle icon who’s being laid to rest here.” (The icon is one Murtaddah. The so-called ‘Muslim’ women who were present are murtaddahs. They masquerade as Muslims –The Majlis)
Mr. Solomon responded as follows with his corrupt “Fatwa”:
“No, I wouldn’t say that females are not allowed specifically or jurisprudentially from the perspective of Islam. What happens is because a deceased ordinarily is buried within hours of having passed on, the actual mourning takes place at the home.” (The jaahil spoke absolute rubbish. This drivel exhibits his jahl-e-murakkab –compound ignorance. The fellow should learn first how to effect valid Istinja. He is too stupid to understand that it is haraam for Muslim females to visit the graveyard. The house-mourning stupidity mentioned by the Solomon character further exhibits his jahaalat.
Women are not allowed to frequent the Qabrustaan, not because of the silly ‘house-mourning’ claim made by this miscreant fellow, but because the Shariah JURISPRUDENTIALLY prohibits them. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had cursed women who go to the cemetery. Solomon acquitted himself with absolute bunkum. – The Majlis)
He further said:
“And many times the deceased is buried late at night. Because what happens, you want to do it quickly, and at the same time, at night is when people have come back from work etc.”
(More rubbish which we are sure the non-Muslim reporter must have discerned. The night has absolutely no share and no bearing on the Shariah’s prohibition for women to attend the Qabrustaan. Whether night or day, the prohibition is the same. – The Majlis)
He added:
“So because of logistical preferences, women prefer to do the mourning at home, and the menfolk come and do the quick prayer and do burial, ordinarily.” (The reporter will indeed be a moron to swallow this twaddle of Solomon. The ‘logistical preferences’ are stupid figments of his vermiculated brain – vermiculated with fisq, fujoor and kufr. It is not a case of women ‘preferring’. It is the decree of the Shariah which prohibits them from attending the Qabrustaan even if there are no menfolk present. But at a funeral, NEVER will even lewd Muslim women be present. The lewd ones do go to the cemetery in these days at such times when no burial takes place. But even these lewd ones have more shame than the Solomon jaahil. They NEVER attend a funeral/burial. They do understand that intermingling of sexes is a dimension of ZINA. But this miserable character is at pains with his stupid attempts to justify zina. Those so-called Muslim women who had attended the funeral of the murtaddah ‘icon’ are not Muslims. – The Majlis)
Even the non-Muslim knew that Islam doesn’t allow females to go to the cemetery, but Sulaimaan Ravat issued a “Fatwa” to confuse and mislead the reporter and those listening to the report. (Yes, the non-Muslim reporter must have understood the jaahil beating about the bush with his baseless opinion. He issues the fatwas of Iblees who urinates such garbage into the brains of his agents. – The Majlis)
Q. Is it permissible for women to add false hair (not human hair) to their hair?
A. The Qur’aan Majeed mentioning the oath taken by shaitaan on the occasion of his expulsion from the Heavens, says:
“I (i.e. Shaitaan) will most surely lead them astray; I shall surely instil false hopes in them; I shall surely command them and they will cut the ears of animals, and I shall surely command them to change their appearances (created by) Allah. Whoever takes shaitaan as a friend besides Allah, verily he has incurred manifest loss.”
(Aayat 119, Surah Nisaa’)
Every act which is in conflict with the Shariah is the inspiration of Shaitaan. When Allah Ta’ala cursed him and expelled him from the heaven, he (shaitaan) resolved to mislead mankind.
Among the ways in which shaitaan induces people to change the appearances which Allah Ta’ala has created for them, are shaving beards, women cutting their hair, women implanting false hair, tattooing and the like.
It is gross ingratitude and also gross inferiority of complex to be dissatisfied with the natural hair, natural colour and natural appearance Allah Ta’ala has created for people. False hair is satanically deceptive and displays rejection of the manner Allah Ta’ala has created for a person. He knows why he has created people in the manner they find themselves.
The West – the Yahood and Nasaara—who have been the colonial masters of African and Eastern countries for centuries, have cultivated a gross sense of inferiority in African, Arab and Eastern people. These people now believe that even their natural appearances are defective, and that the appearance of the American and European is to be adopted and emulated. This is indeed a most humiliating attitude which exists widely among African, Arab and Eastern people. It is this evil of inferiority stemming from Western slavery that induces Africans, Arabs and Eastern people to believe that their own appearances are ugly and defective, hence the need to adopt the appearances of the Americans and Europeans.
But, instead of rising in esteem, the imitators make greater fools of themselves. Every person is able to understand the folly and stupidity of those who use false hair to ‘beautify’ themselves. However, the opposite is achieved. They render themselves hideously ugly.
A Brother from Gambia asks: Question Is it correct that it is mentioned in Siyar, Dhahabi that Imam Shafi (Rahmatullah Alaihi) saw many women who reached puberty at nine years in Sana, Yemen and that Imam Shafi (Rahmatullah Alayhi) in Sunan Al Kubra, Bayhaqi, reported seeing a grandmother of 21 years in Yemen? Please comment on the statements from Islamic preachers defending the actions of the early generation of Muslim- the act of child marriage, and the venomenous criticism of modernists of today who brand adults who enter into child-marriage as paedophiles. Answer All zindeeqs, modernists and those who bootlick and hindlick the western kuffaar should understand well that Islam permits child-marriage. Denial of this irrefutable fact is kufr. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) and many others had entered into such marriages. Those who chant the western kufr, obscene ideological, pejorative theme of such persons being paedophiles, suffer from the mental malady known as Ibleesmentia which the Qur’aan terms Takhabbutush Shaitaan. This disease is generally suffered by those who devour interest, but it is extremely contagious, and afflicts all Zanaadaqah and Munaafiqeen such as the moron reverends and pundits who masquerade as Ulama. Allah Ta’ala is the Creator. He has allowed child-marriage, hence it is incorrigible kufr to criticize and vilify an institution permitted by our Khaaliq (Creator). Those who have been afflicted with Ibleesmentia which in reality is a Divine Curse (La’nat of Allah Ta’ala), have no qualms about a man fornicating and having extra marital relationships with a dozen women, but they satanically find cause for criticizing and vilifying an Institution permitted by Allah Ta’ala. Whilst Allah Ta’ala has allowed it, these moron scoundrels disgorge vituperation on those who avail themselves of Divine Permissibility. Now understand well! Child marriage is just as permissible as polygamy. And, to Hell with the opponents whose religion is satanism
The dangerous thing about so-called “Muslim feminists” is that they know only random bits and pieces about Islam and apply these disparate ideas haphazardly to create a highly distorted, disturbed view.
They make arbitrary generic assertions like, “Islam is founded on mercy, kindness, and compassion!” Just a blanket assumption that they themselves assert, based on the skewed picture painted for them by their favorite Compassionate Imams.
These Muslim feminists also parrot feminist buzzwords that they try to inappropriately inject into Islam, keywords like “consent” and “freedom” and other vacuous concepts. They make the natural unnatural. They make the beautiful ugly.
Take marriage, for example.
Muslim feminists usually end their tirades with the sentiment that Muslim marriage is “worse than prison,” as you see here in this screenshot. Typical feminist take.
In reality, Islam is free from feminist fantasies and delusions.
The Islamic marriage model is laid out for us by Allah, the Creator of both men and women, the Just, the All-Knowing. Overall, the tenor of the relationship is one of مودة ورحمة (love and mercy), سكينة (serenity, peace, tranquility), and معروف (that which is known as good, reasonable, kind). It is supposed to be a soft, loving bond between the husband and wife who find comfort and peace with one another and exist together in harmony.
But we cannot exist in harmony if we are out of sync with our fitra, our most primordial instincts and intuitions, our very human nature.
Allah tells us in the Quran certain principles and truths about the natures of men and women, femininity and masculinity, and gender roles in the family:
1. That males and females are very different:
وليس الذكر كالأنثى…
“And the male is not like the female…” (Surat Ali `Imran, 36)
2. That family roles exist and are different by gender:
“Men are authorities over women, by right of what Allah has granted one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard…” (Surat An-Nisa, 34)
3. That the husband has a particular degree of both rights and responsibilities above his wife, meaning also that he has a higher degree of authority:
“And due to the women is similar to what is due from them [to their husbands], in what is reasonable, and men have a degree above them…” (Surat Al-Baqara, 228)
4. That in certain circumstances, if the wife is brazenly committing sins or openly defiant to her husband or acting rebellious or belligerent, the husband has the right to address her infractions and curb her injustices by meting out various methods of discipline as outlined by Allah:
“…But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance / defiance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them [lightly]. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Exalted and Grand.” (Surat An-Nisa, 34)
These are some parameters that guide the general framework of marriage in Islam, and what each party owes the other.
Both the husband and the wife have certain rights and certain responsibilities in Islam. It’s not a total free-for-all, not a blank slate we can just fill in with whatever we feel like. It’s not the liberal secular feminist model of egalitarianism or “equality” (as if such a farce is even possible).
Yet there is still some leeway for each family to adjust to its own set of circumstances within the range of the halal.
This average Muslim feminist, in the attached comment, objects to the basic structure of Islamic marriage, to the very concept of hierarchy:
She rejects the idea that the husband has the authority to “determine how much pocket money she needs.” She’s not pleased that a wife has the money that her husband gives her (nafaqa) instead of going out to work to make her own money for herself just because.
She rejects the idea that the husband has the authority to “determine who she sees, what she does.” Basically, that the wife does have to answer to her husband and obey him in what is halal. She’s displeased that the wife isn’t a total wild card, a completely free agent who can literally do anything she likes. Any sort of “restriction” is deemed intolerable to the feminist mind.
She rejects that the husband gets “the final word.” She hates the husband’s higher degree of authority (and therefore, responsibility). She wants to have zero power differential, zero hierarchy. The husband and wife must be “equals” or else the feminist will be enraged.
She also says accusingly, “She can’t refuse intimacy.” This feminist rejects the husband’s basic right to intimacy with his wife, and that the wife may not weaponize sex in the marriage. Again, for the feminist, this is an egregious breach of “freedom.”
She, right on cue, throws in the word “consent.”
To end her comment, the Muslim feminist declares that this (basically the Islamic marriage model) “sounds worse than prison” so she prefers her own “version” where Islam is exclusively built upon “kindness and compassion” and cotton candy and roses and sunshine and unicorns.
Feminism leads to a mentality where it is possible to reject the words of Allah Himself, the rules and regulations laid out by Allah, and the very principles of human nature.
Feminism is a path that leads to denying human nature and defying Allah Himself.
Question Is it permissible for women to look at the picture of any Aalim, Shaikh or Buzrug whose gives talks on YouTube, television and other social media platforms? All of these buzrugs are na-mahaarem for the women? Answer If there is no fear of fitnah or lust then it is permissible for women to look at a video-talk of a reliable Aalim/Shaikh. But, since fitnah cannot be initially assessed, it is therefore precautionary for women not to look at the pictures when listening to the lecturer. (End of the corrupt fatwa)
COMMENT The aforementioned ‘fatwa’ to the question posed by a Pakistani lady, was issued by the darul ifta of Mufti Taqi. Every Muslim with healthy Imaan regardless of him/her lacking in Islamic Knowledge can understand the stupidity and invalidity of this corrupt fatwa. Mufti Taqi is a halaalizer of haraam pictography, hence he and his darul ifta are in tight spots when such questions are posed. In seeking to wriggle out of the tight corner, these muftis adopt stupid fence-sitting stances which highlight the silliness and butlaan (invalidity) of the ‘fatwas’ which they disgorge by way of sucking their thumbs. Firstly, the Qur’aan Majeed prohibits men and women looking at one another. “Say to the Mu’minaat to lower their gaze and to guard their chastity……” (An-Nur, Aayat 31). The first step towards zina (fornication/adultery) is the look, hence the Qur’aan prohibits looking without restrictive conditions. That is: it is haraam to look regardless of the assumption that the look is without lust. That the look is without lust is a shaitaani hallucination of the nafs. The Qur’aanic command is not abrogated on the basis of the hallucination of the look not being accompanied by lust. The Qur’aan commands: “Do not come near to zina.” The look takes one near, very near to zina. In all cases, at least zina of the mind and heart is the first effect of the look. Even the moron mufti acknowledges in his fatwa that the Ihtiyaat (safety/precaution) necessitates abstention from looking. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the zina of the eyes is in looking… and the heart desires (zina).” But this wayward mufti says that it is permissible. Furthermore, he compounds his haraam, baatil fatwa with the kufr of pictures. Thus, the sin is a compounded double one: The sin of looking, and the kufr sin of believing that the haraam picture is halaal, and deceitfully encouraging women to stare at the ugly snouts of the so-called ‘buzrugs’ who advertise themselves on the worst kind of haraam media such as youtube, facebook and the like. As far as the prohibition of looking is concerned, the Fuqaha have ruled that if one is aroused by looking even at one’s mahram female, e.g. niece, aunt, etc., then looking at her is forbidden. In one Hadith it is mentioned: “Every eye is adulterous.” Despite the mas’alah being so palpably clear, the mufti befogs it with his stupid nafsaani answer because he is in a quandary stemming from his halaalizing of pictures. The correct fatwa is simple and straightforward: Pictures are haraam. It is haraam for women to look at the ugly faces of the stupid molvis, shaikhs and crank buzrugs who appear on the satanic media screens. The sin is of an aggravated kind.
Posted on Fri 27 January 2023 ZINA GATHERINGS OF THE FRIENDS OF IBLEES
A justifiably exasperated Sister from Durban, correctly lamenting about a group of Friends of Iblees operating in Durban with their promotion of Zina in various guises, says:
“I wrote the following message for ulema in Durban, will email Jamiat KZN. Al Ansaar is a well known radio station, organization that allows such gatherings. I am not happy about it. Im not happy about the fact that it seems okay to make Islam modern, and to give promiscuity an ‘islamic’ cover.
Message for the Ulama
“I have a question regarding a very concerned matter.
It has been brought to my attention that gatherings which are not in accordance to Shariah are taking place. A group called FRIENDS has been active for the past 6 years. The initial purpose and intention of this group was to uplift women, give them support, help guide them to the right path, especially divorced women and widows. But now it has become a gathering for the rich. Women who are supposed to be in purdah are exposed to men in these gatherings. There are no precautions taken into consideration. The laws of shariah are being blatantly flouted. There are women who even do match making against the laws of Shariah. They have groups with men and allow the women to chat.
The members who wish to join these gatherings have to pay towards the expenses of these gatherings. It’s not voluntary. It’s like a high tea-gathering for the elite and not for the poor community.
Are such gatherings allowed by the Shariah?
As a woman I know there is a limit to what I can do and cannot. When such gatherings are becoming so popular. Why are the ulema not stepping in and stopping it? A woman like me can create awareness about it being wrong but these women who are involved in initiating such evil gatherings will not stop unless the ulema tell them this is not allowed. This cannot happen. You are breaking the law of shariah.
There are so many similar incidents occurring and some sisters have reached out to me saying they asked the ulema for help, and nothing was done.
They went to the Jamiat and nothing was done. So this gives the people who are modernizing Islam more advantage because the men are not speaking up.
I feel it needs to be spoken about in the Musjids so that men can tell their wives. It needs to be spoken about in every community.
In this time of fitna and fasad, we have to start standing up against these gatherings because these women are allowing dunya’s glamor to sweep them off their feet.
Below is images of an invitation the group “FRIENDS” created . It will be held at Al Ansaar coffee shop and hall. This week. I urge you to please look into this and do something about it.
This same group, FRIENDS, is having another gathering at a bed and breakfast near the Musjid. They collaborate with Ilmsa.” (End of the Sister’s letter)
COMMENT OF THE SHARIAH
Yes, indeed this stercoraceous group of copro individuals is correctly described as ‘FRIENDS”. They are the FRIENDS of Shaitaan – the Chief Iblees. In fact they could be correctly designated as being the illegitimate progeny of Iblees. Shaitaan does have legitimate children who are devils of his ilk. But, his illegitimate progeny is made up of copro humans whom he fans out into the world as his primary agents to execute his multifarious schemes and conspiracies of fitnah and fasaad. Zaani-aat of the category of this group, not ordinary prostitutes plying their immoral trade, and Zanaadaqah who misinterpret the Qur’aan and Ahaadith to fabricate meanings as cover for their kufr and nifaaq, are among the illegitimate progeny of Iblees.
We find ourselves in this era which is the initial phase of the Age of Dajjaal. In this era of Dajjaaliyat most of the minor signs of Qiyaamah are being enacted in preparation for the final stage when Dajjaal himself will emerge as predicted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
While we lament and Islamically rant against all agents of Dajjaal and Iblees, we should not be surprised nor weaken our resolve regarding the vital and sacred obligation of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahyi Anil Munkar which must be perpetuated until the very last regardless of who accepts or rejects. The Ulama should not abandon Amr Bil Ma’roof because of the wide-scale, intensive and extensive prevalence of shaitaani fitnah and fasaad. The process of fitnah is incremental. It will not decrease. We are heading for Qiyaamah, and the dunya has to be destroyed. Our objective is not to provide hidaayat (guidance). Hidaayat is the prerogative exclusively of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Confirming this reality, the Qur’aan Majeed states:
“Verily, you (O Muhammad!) cannot guide whom you love. But Allah guides whomever He wills, and He knows best who are to be guided.”
This ‘Friends’ group as described by the Sister and as their pictures and write-ups further elaborate, is undoubtedly a shaitaani ZINA group of shayaateenul ins (human devils) which Iblees has harnessed to lure stupid women into his snare of immorality, vice and Zina. All the women who are taking a leading role in the implementation of the Zina Plot of Shaitaan are confirmed zaani-aat who are being handled and mishandled by the zaani menfolk. The evil men in whose hands Shaitaan has placed the reins of this extremely jahannami insidious plot of zina has most cunningly trapped the prostitutes into the plot of Iblees.
These zaani-aat are satanically camouflaged as self-esteem coaches, psychiatrists, reflexocologists, coprocologists, najaasatocologists, sataniocologists, dajjaalocologists, etc., etc. Understand well, that all ‘psychiatrists’ and ‘counsellors’ are agents of Iblees. Whatever they dole out as ‘advice’ and ‘therapy’ are satanic ‘sciences’ inspired by Iblees. Only such ignorant Muslims whose Imaan dwells in the doldrums of moral corruption, who are bereft of any Yaqeen in Allah Ta’ala, visit such she and he-devils for advice. These villains who are qualified in the satanic ‘science’ of psychiatry and the like are in the same category as fortune-tellers and satanic astrologers. Your Imaan dangles by a thread when you visit these shaitaani rubbishes, and your Imaan says ‘goodbye’ to you after you emerge with confidence from these agents of Iblees.
The Sister is justified for her extremely mild criticism of the Durban Ulama for their silence. She mentions that this ‘Friends’ group of shaitaani zaani-aat has been inexistence in Durban since the past six years. It was therefore necessary for the Ulama to have castigated and excoriated this haraam, zina group operated by the Illegitimate Daughters of Iblees. The silence of the Ulama is a primary cause for sin and vice becoming indurate and embedded in the community.
While most Muslims in this age are absolutely jaahil, corrupt and evil, numerous among them are sincere and genuinely astray. Amr Bil Ma’roof will benefit such ignoramuses. As for the zaani-aat who are executing the plot of Iblees and who are operating under the appellation, ‘Friends’, there is no hope of reformation for them. They are not like ordinary prostitutes who are in the business only for money. While there is always hope for the reformation of commercial prostitutes, there is no hope whatsoever for such ZAANI-AAT who are the agents of Iblees – whose function it is to entrap other stupid women who have the tendencies of prostitutes.
The Qur’aan Majeed negates hope of reformation for these kind of copro-hybrid human-devils. In regard to the progeny of Shaitaan, Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan Majeed:
“We have created numerous humans and jinn (specifically) as fuel for Jahannam.”
The Qur’aan describing the fodder of Hell-Fire variously epithelizes them as “Wuqooun Naar and Hasabu Jahannam.
The shameless intermingling of the sexes, the satanic match-making, the shaitaani glamour of tea parties, and the very satanic attitudes associated with this shaitaani group of copro individuals are some of the factors which even stupid Muslims can understand why this group is HARAAM and why their shaitaani functions are HARAAM.
“O People of Imaan! Save yourselves and your familes from the Fire… (Qur’aan)
Do not fall into the shaitaani trap of this shaitaani “Friends’ group consisting of human devils.
Jaalhaque 