MFSYG

She constantly comes up on my feed. She is either extremely ignorant regarding the religion or she’s a plant. A lot of what she does is the classic, “I’m not saying I agree, but…” routine whenever discussing matters in Islam that Muslims have no right to form personal opinions on in the first place. There are issues where our role is simply to hear and obey what Allah and His Messenger ﷺ have legislated, not to sit in judgment over them according to modern sensibilities. The Jooos have done DAMAGE to the females on social media.

Sisters, please don’t listen to this kind of slop. This is jooish propaganda. The happiest women on earth are married women and it’s not even close. Single women are lost and miserable most of the time. Remember, most of the happiest married women keep their life private and their blessings a secret. They’re typically not on social media and the ones that are and share their experience get 1000 times less exposure/virality than the miserable women bevsuse these algorithms love misery and negativity. Wallah marriage is the most beautiful part of this life, just pick the right man who will lead you. If you let fear take over and prioritize things other than marriage, or approach marriage with backuplans and whatnot, you’ll attract what you fear. Be optimistic, be a lover, dont be a goyyette.

SubḥānAllāh. Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that from the punishments of a person when the truth comes to him and he turns away from it is that Allah tests him with further misguidance. Anyone with even a little ʿaql can see that this has been happening to MH for quite some time. The issue is simple: Bashar al-Assad is a ruler. Even if a person believes he is a kāfir, takfīr of specific rulers is a serious matter with principles, conditions, and impediments that must be examined according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. It is not something people rush into based on emotions, politics, or headlines. The Houthis are an armed rebel group claiming Islam while fighting, killing, spreading corruption, and calling to falsehood. Speaking about their deviance is not the same issue as making takfīr of a specific ruler. Two completely different subjects. Two completely different rulings. Two completely different protocols. Islam is not governed by political passions. It is governed by the Qur’an and Sunnah upon the understanding of the Salaf. Fear Allah. The Prophet ﷺ said: “Indeed Allah does not take away knowledge by snatching it away from the people. Rather, He takes away knowledge by taking the scholars, until when no scholar remains, the people take ignorant ones as leaders. They are asked, so they give fatwas without knowledge. They are astray and lead others astray.” Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (100)

@ShirazMarsala_ Forgive me, I got mixed up with Twitter’s translation feature.

@MFSYG2035 Tamam işte ben de bunu diyorum. Sen olması gerekeni anlatmışsın ben olmaması gerekenin olduğunu anlatıyorum. Böyledir demiyorum. Vaka analizi yapıyorum.

Bu hadsizliğin sebebi ne biliyor musunuz? Tesettürün “itaat simgesi” olması. Erkekler inançlı olsun inançsız olsun tesettürsüz kadına daha saygılıdır. Allahtan korkmadığını ve itaat etmediğini düşündüğü için onlara daha saygılılar. Tesettürlü kadın itaatkâr bir zavallı olduğu için müslümanı da gavuru da hadsizlik edebilme hakkını kendinde görüyor.

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that obedience to God automatically means obedience to men. It doesn’t. A Muslim woman who wears hijab is not declaring, “Every man now has authority over me.” She is declaring, “Allah has authority over me.” Those are two completely different things. The irony is that you claim an uncovered woman is saying, “Nobody can tell me what to do,” while a covered woman is saying, “Everyone can tell me what to do.” In reality, neither is true. An immodestly dressed woman gets judged, criticised, approached, objectified, sexualised, lectured, and harassed all the time. Men do not suddenly lose opinions because a woman takes off her hijab. Likewise, a Muslim woman wearing hijab does not believe random men have authority over her. Islam does not teach that every male stranger can command women around. What you’re actually struggling with is the concept of submission itself. You see submission to Allah and immediately translate it into submission to men because modern feminism has spent decades teaching that obedience itself is degrading. A Muslim sees it differently. Every Muslim man submits to Allah. Every Muslim woman submits to Allah. The question is simple: if submitting to your Creator is humiliation, then why is it only degrading when a woman does it? And if submission to Allah is noble for a man, why does it suddenly become oppression for a woman? The contradiction is obvious.

Göğüs dekolteli, mini etekli, hatta çıplak olmasına gerek yok sadece başının açık olması yeterli. Bu bir psikolojik sınır. Ben itaat etmiyorum, dolayısıyla ataerkiyi de reddediyorum böylelikle sınırlarım var ve Tanrı’yı bile kendime karıştırmazken sen bana karışamazsın. Tam tersi de şu: Ben Allah’a itaat ediyorum. Dolayısıyla ataerkiye okeyim. Allah’a itaat ettiğim için itaat edebilen bir yapıdayım ve dünyadaki tüm erkekler random bi şekilde bana karışabilir, bana akıl verebilir, bana had bildirebilir, beni yargılayabilir. Bunu burda bile tecrübe ediyorsunuz. Müslüman erkekler olsun diğerleri olsun hiç tanımadıkları tesettülü bir kadına ileri geri laf söyleme, hizalama haddini kendinde buluyor.

This is one of those claims that sounds profound until you think about it for more than five seconds. The hijab is a symbol of obedience to Allah. A Muslim woman is not embarrassed by that. Every Muslim is supposed to be obedient to Allah, whether man or woman. What’s strange is how you’ve taken one rude man’s behaviour and turned it into a theory about why all men respect unveiled women more. If that were true, women who dress immodestly would never be harassed, catcalled, objectified, followed, pressured, exploited, or treated as sexual objects. Yet everyone knows this happens every day. The reality is much simpler. Some people dislike the hijab because it openly represents Islam. Some people dislike the hijab because it represents modesty. Some people dislike the hijab because it reminds them that not everyone has adopted their values. None of that proves the hijab makes a woman less respected. If anything, the amount of outrage directed at a piece of cloth shows that it carries far more meaning than its critics would like to admit. And calling a woman who obeys her Lord an “obedient wretch” says far more about your attitude towards obedience than it does about the woman wearing the hijab.

This is why words like “misogyny” get thrown around so much, even by some who identify as Muslim. Misogyny is a feminist social construct designed to manipulate people into reacting negatively anytime gender differences are brought up. This is why the Muslim woman working a 9 to 5, free mixing with men every day, becomes irritated when you speak about the Qur’an and Sunnah. Your words remind her that Islam came with a model for women that differs drastically from the modern liberal ideal. This is why the Muslim woman on social media will sympathise with female apostates who leave Islam and complain about polygyny. She sees her own frustrations reflected in them, so she responds emotionally rather than objectively. The issue is not that these women have never heard the Islamic position. The issue is that they have heard it and do not like what it implies. A practising Muslim woman is a walking reminder that another standard exists. A woman who covers properly, avoids unnecessary interaction with men, guards her modesty, and takes pride in her femininity challenges the modern narrative that fulfilment is found through careerism, attention, validation, and imitation of men. That is why the reaction is often emotional rather than intellectual. Because the existence of a woman who willingly submits to Allah’s commands forces others to confront uncomfortable questions about their own choices. People rarely become angry at things they find irrelevant. They become angry at things that expose contradictions. The proper Muslim woman is not controversial because she harms anyone. She is controversial because her existence reminds people that Islam still has standards, and those standards have not changed to accommodate modern sensibilities.

Never in a million years has a piece of clothing on a woman’s body become such a global controversy. A woman covering herself from head to toe is spoken about as though it is one of the greatest forms of oppression imaginable, despite the fact that clothing itself has never historically attracted this level of outrage. In my view, this comes down to two things. Decades of propaganda, media conditioning, and cultural messaging. Movies, television, news outlets, celebrities, influencers, and social media have spent years promoting a particular image of what a “liberated” woman looks like. As a result, many people now react emotionally to the hijab before they’ve even examined the arguments for it. It’s not surprising that those most influenced by this narrative are often those immersed in these mediums, women that come from homes where the father is lacking manhood. For some people, the sight of a woman who embraces modesty, chastity, and restraint for example a Niqabi is uncomfortable because it challenges the values they have adopted for themselves. When a woman sees a woman willingly rejecting attention, mixing with men, working with men, giggling with men on the internet, and the culture of display, it can serve as a reminder that there are competing standards of womanhood, it reminds the average Muslim girl that she’s acting shamelessly and immodest. It burns in the heart. When the “average” Muslim girl sees a proper Muslim girl on the street, it is a moment of realisation. It’s a reminder whether they deny it or accept it, a reminder to act correct.

Because Islam looks at both the apparent and the hidden. A man cannot see whether a woman pays zakah, but he can see whether she openly follows the commands of Allah. Visible acts of obedience matter, just as visible acts of disobedience matter. Nobody says, “Why do you care if he drinks alcohol? Ask whether he gives zakah.” Yet when hijab is mentioned, people suddenly act as if outward obedience is irrelevant. The issue isn’t image. The issue is that Islam judges both what is seen and what is unseen.

pourquoi un homme regarde en premier le voile (pas un pilier de l'islam) et pas si cette dernière sort sa zakat ? parce que l'apparence et l'image qu'ils auront aux yeux du monde en étant marié à elle, est plus importante qu'un pilier invisible :)

That’s like saying, “People are dying in wars, so why does the law care if I steal?” The existence of bigger problems doesn’t make other actions irrelevant. Allah judges oppression, genocide, and injustice, but He also judges individual actions. The fact that He allows both to happen temporarily doesn’t mean He approves of either.

God doesn’t move an inch for famines, slavery, or genocides so why would he care about me having sex lol someone answer this immediately

@Ibn_Hibban @hiwabusally They tried to boycott Hajj, yet you don’t see them boycotting the World Cup or condemning Muslims who play in it in America. America is Israel’s biggest financial, military, and political backer.

@hiwabusally Habibi, remember when the genocide was starting there was a campaign to boycott hajj and umrah They've tried it before

How intellectually dense do you have to be to hold this view?

A photo of a crime committed against women does not prove Islam teaches that crime. Can you show me a verse from the Qur’an or an authentic hadith where Allah or the Prophet ﷺ commanded acid attacks on women? If not, then you’re not proving something about Islam, you’re proving that some human being committed a crime. Those are two completely different claims.

Ask them.

One of the most underestimated yet powerful issues in the liberal/feminist worldview regarding gender is a social dynamic that few people are willing to acknowledge. Broadly speaking, there are two ways societies view and treat women. Social Dynamic 1: Women are viewed as soft, feminine, protected, innocent, and fundamentally different from men. Society extends them a level of leniency, protection, and consideration that men generally do not receive. Social Dynamic 2: Women are viewed as equal to men in every social sphere. They work outside the home, hold positions of authority, enter traditionally male environments, compete with men, and are expected to be treated the same as men. The problem is that modern society is trying to apply Social Dynamic 1 to women who want Social Dynamic 2. As much as Social Dynamic 1 allows women to get away with many things that men cannot, most men historically accepted that arrangement because it came with a different set of expectations, responsibilities, and social roles for women. Why did this dynamic function for centuries? Because women generally occupied a different social role. They were primarily homemakers, mothers, and caretakers. Society viewed them differently because they lived differently. You cannot expect society to continue applying Social Dynamic 1 to women who are outside the home, free-mixing with men, travelling alone, dating, competing with men in the workplace, holding authority over men, and adopting roles that were traditionally male, while simultaneously demanding all the protections, excuses, and special treatment associated with Social Dynamic 1. This is where much of the tension comes from. Many modern women want the benefits of being treated as strong, independent, and equal to men when it is advantageous, while also wanting the benefits of being viewed as delicate, innocent, protected, and exempt from criticism when that is advantageous. The two frameworks are fundamentally different, yet society is constantly being pressured to operate both at the same time. This is why many men find themselves confused and frustrated in modern relationships. They are still operating with an instinctive perception of women based on Social Dynamic 1, while many of the women they deal with are operating according to Social Dynamic 2. The result is a constant clash of expectations, responsibilities, privileges, and accountability.

@blacksoulmedia Also ask them: Why is Islam the fastest growing religion in the world BY CONVERSATION RATE? Why are 75% of these converts, WESTERN FEMALES who come from the land of freedom and choice?

So if the hijab is oppression and men force women to wear it, what's the argument for the convert girl with no man and no Muslim family who decided to wear it?

That’s an interesting claim considering Shi’ism became the state religion of Iran under the Safavids, who used state power, coercion, and persecution against Sunnis to impose it on a largely Sunni population. And if Shi’ism spreads through “knowledge”, why are so many of its core beliefs built upon reports that even its own scholars dispute, while the Sunni hadith tradition developed the most rigorous system of chain verification in human history? Also, if knowledge is the standard, why do many Shi’a polemics rely on emotional appeals about Karbala rather than proving the fundamental doctrines of Imamah from clear, explicit texts? The reality is that every major civilization has used a mixture of preaching, education, politics, and military power. Stop lying.

Sunnism spreads by the sword Shiism spreads through education and knowledge

There’s a lot of emotion in your comment, but very little evidence. First, let’s separate what is sinful from what is permissible. If a man lies to his wife, then yes, lying is haram. But show me a single verse or authentic hadith that says a man must obtain his first wife’s permission before marrying a second wife. Not “it would be nice.” Not “I think he should.” Not “it would hurt her feelings.” Actual evidence. Allah allowed a man to marry up to four wives and nowhere in the Qur’an or Sunnah did He make the first wife’s permission a condition. As for marriage contracts, that’s a separate issue. If she stipulated a condition in the contract and the condition is valid according to the scholars, then that’s a different discussion entirely. But that’s not the same as claiming that polygyny itself requires the first wife’s approval. Second, you keep repeating that polygyny was ONLY introduced for widows. Again, where is your evidence? Surah an-Nisa 4:3 does not say: “Marry widows.” It does not say: “Marry older women.” It does not say: “Marry women with children.” It says: “Marry those women who please you, two, three, or four.” If Allah intended to restrict it to widows, He could have said so. Likewise, where did the Prophet ﷺ ever say: “You may only marry a second wife if she is a widow.” Where did Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, or any of the Salaf say this? You won’t find it. You’re taking one possible wisdom behind a ruling and turning it into the actual ruling itself. Those are not the same thing. Third, you quoted verses about justice as though they prohibit polygyny. They don’t. Allah knew those verses when He revealed the permission for four wives. In Surah an-Nisa 4:3 Allah permitted up to four wives on the condition that the husband establishes justice in the matters he can control, such as spending, housing, clothing, and time. Then in Surah an-Nisa 4:129 Allah explained that complete equality of love and emotion is impossible. The scholars never understood 4:129 as cancelling 4:3. If they did, polygyny would be haram. Instead they understood that justice is required in the matters a man controls, while complete equality in the heart is impossible. That’s why the Prophet ﷺ himself had multiple wives. Are you claiming the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was doing something merely tolerated but discouraged? Or that he failed to understand these verses? Of course not. Fourth, you said scholars recommend one wife. Fine. Recommended is not obligatory. A scholar recommending something due to a fear that some men may fail does not mean Allah restricted the ruling. The same scholars still affirmed the permissibility of marrying two, three, or four. You’re confusing “recommended” with “required.” Finally, you keep describing men who want multiple wives as having “cheating fantasies.” That itself is a problem. Cheating is haram because it involves zina and betrayal. Polygyny is halal because Allah legislated it. The two are literally opposites. You may dislike polygyny. You may think most men aren’t capable of it. You may personally prefer monogamy. But none of that changes the fact that Allah permitted it, the Prophet ﷺ practiced it, the Companions practiced it, and no scholar from the Salaf ever restricted it to widows only. So the real question remains: Can you produce a single verse, authentic hadith, or statement from the Salaf saying that a man may only take additional wives in order to help widows? Because that is the central claim you’ve repeated several times, and so far there is no evidence for it.

I’m tired of these uneducated mothefuckers, stop getting online to spread your disgusting fallacies, wallah you have no shame nor fear of God.

This is wrong because you have to remember that lying is a sin in Islam. If you’re pretending and lying to her that you’re not seeing another woman, that IS haram because you’re deceiving your wife.

Can you provide evidence from the Qur’an or authentic Sunnah that polygyny was specifically introduced only to deal with widows, older women, or women with children? Because that’s not what the verse says. Allah says: فَانكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاءِ مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ “Then marry those that please you of women, two, three, or four…” (Surah an-Nisa 4:3) The verse does not say “widows only,” “older women only,” or “women with children only.” Those restrictions are not found in the text. Of course, marrying widows and helping vulnerable women can be one wisdom and one benefit of polygyny, but that is different from claiming that it is the sole reason Allah legislated it. By your logic, why did many of the Companions have multiple wives who were not widows? Why did scholars throughout Islamic history never say a man is only allowed a second wife if he finds a widow? Also, let’s be honest. Islam recognizes that men have sexual desires. That’s not controversial. A man is rewarded for fulfilling those desires through halal means rather than haram means. The Prophet ﷺ said: “In the sexual act of each of you there is charity.” The Companions said: “O Messenger of Allah, one of us fulfills his desire and gets rewarded for it?” He ﷺ said: “Do you not see that if he were to fulfill it in a haram way he would bear sin? Likewise, if he fulfills it in a halal way he receives a reward.” (Sahih Muslim 1006) So Islam absolutely allows marriage for desire, companionship, love, children, family building, helping widows, and many other reasons. The burden of proof is on you to show where Allah or His Messenger ﷺ restricted polygyny to widows and vulnerable women. The Qur’an simply doesn’t say that.

Back then, women were losing their husbands (due to war) and since they mainly relied on their husbands for provision, taking on 4 wives was introduced to help these women, specifically WIDOWED women, and women who are older too, women who even had children.

I never said men are greater in value, worth, or before Allah. I said men and women are not equal in rights, roles, responsibilities, and rulings. Those are two different claims. A man and a woman are equally human, equally accountable before Allah, equally capable of entering Jannah, and equally rewarded for righteousness. Allah says: إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ “Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.” (Surah al-Hujurat 49:13) But equality of worth does not mean identical rights and obligations. If men and women were completely equal in Islamic law, why are the rulings different regarding inheritance, leadership of the family, polygyny, hijab requirements, testimony in certain cases, financial obligations, guardianship in marriage, jihad, and many other issues? The fact that Allah legislated different rulings for men and women is itself proof that Islam does not teach absolute equality in every sense. Islam teaches justice, not sameness. So when you say “women are given completely equal rights in Islam”, that is simply not accurate. If by “equal” you mean equal worth before Allah, then yes. If by “equal” you mean identical rights, responsibilities, and rulings, then the Qur’an and Sunnah clearly say otherwise. And to show why I reject this “everything must be equal” framework, here is a simple example where a woman’s right is actually greater than a man’s. A man came to the Prophet ﷺ and said: “Who is most deserving of my good companionship?” He ﷺ replied: “Your mother.” The man asked, “Then who?” He ﷺ said: “Your mother.” He asked, “Then who?” He ﷺ said: “Your mother.” He asked, “Then who?” He ﷺ said: “Your father.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 5971) So here the mother’s right is mentioned three times before the father’s. Does that mean women are superior to men? No. Likewise, when a man is given certain rights that a woman is not given, that does not automatically mean men are superior to women. The issue is that you’re switching between two different definitions of equality. When I mention differences in rights, roles, and rulings, you respond by talking about equal worth before Allah. Those are not the same thing. Equal worth before Allah? Yes. Completely equal rights, responsibilities, authority, and rulings? No. The Qur’an and Sunnah are full of examples showing otherwise. May Allah ﷻ increase you in knowledge.

@MFSYG2035 @mimightcry They are equal though, they have equal worth and are judged equally. Your comment is implying that because of all these things men can do, that theyre somehow greater/higher than their female counterparts

js had an argument with someone over feminism in islam and she ended it by saying she doesnt believe in a7adith and the scholars are wrong and shes right

How is a woman equal to a man in Islam when the man can marry four and she can only marry one? When a man can marry a second without even consulting her ? When she has to obey him and he doesn’t have to obey her? When the Prophet ﷺ said that her heaven or hell lies in how she treats her husband? When he said that if she obeys him she enters jannah from any gate? When he gets more in inheritance than her ? When Allah ﷻ literally commanded the women to settle in their homes and only come out for need/necessity? When she has to cover up head to toe but the man doesn’t ? Equality does not mean justice Inequality does not mean injustice I don’t know your reasons for this rhetoric talk but if I was to assume I would say stop trying to please the kuffar or wash your brain from western thought.

@Aelinxqz women are given completely EQUAL and fair rights in islam

Your question assumes the very thing you’re trying to prove. You started with “If the Prophet considered Ali’s words his words…” but where is the authentic evidence that the Prophet ﷺ appointed Ali as the political leader after him in the first place? That’s the entire debate. The fact that Ali رضي الله عنه was virtuous, knowledgeable, trustworthy, and beloved to the Prophet ﷺ does not automatically mean he was designated as the next ruler. That’s a non sequitur. By the same logic, why did Ali himself later give bay’ah to Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه? Why did he name his sons Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman? Why did he marry his daughter to Umar? Why did he serve as an advisor to the very caliphs that Shia sources claim usurped his divinely appointed right? Also, the question creates a false dilemma: either the Companions obeyed Ali or they betrayed the Prophet ﷺ. Ahl al-Sunnah reject that premise entirely. The Prophet ﷺ never explicitly appointed a successor. The Companions therefore gathered to prevent political chaos and civil collapse after his death. Leadership and burial were not mutually exclusive responsibilities. Different Companions handled different affairs. The real question is this: If Allah had made belief in Ali’s Imamate a pillar upon which the guidance of the Ummah depended, why is there no clear Quranic verse saying, “Ali is your Imam after the Prophet”? Why is there no explicit statement from the Prophet ﷺ comparable to the clarity with which he taught Salah, Zakah, fasting, and Hajj? A matter supposedly more important than leadership itself should have evidence clearer than the evidence for wudu.

Exactly. The argument defeats itself. When they say, “I don’t accept the scholars because they’re men,” we ask: How did you learn Arabic? Through dictionaries, grammar books, works of balaghah, books of sarf, books of nahw, and explanations of the language. Who wrote those books? Men. How do you know what a Quranic word meant in 7th-century Arabia? Through the transmission of linguists. Who transmitted it? Men. How do you know the Quran itself was preserved, compiled, and transmitted? Through narrators. Who were they? Men. If the problem is simply that men are involved, then the entire religion, the Arabic language, and all historical knowledge collapse with it. The reality is that nobody rejects an interpretation because a man said it. They reject it because they dislike the conclusion. When a linguist says a word means something they agree with, they accept him. When a scholar explains a verse or hadith in a way they dislike, suddenly “it was interpreted by men.” So the issue was never men. The issue is submission. Allah did not command us to follow revelation only when it agrees with our desires. He commanded us to submit to it whether it agrees with our desires or opposes them. The question is simple: Why do you trust men to teach you Arabic, history, science, and politics, but when it comes to Islam, suddenly the fact that men explained it becomes a problem? The problem is not the men, the problem is “ I find Islam offensive and oppressive because the kuffar told me so” But then again, if you raise your daughters on western academia, liberal thought, feminist ideas, social media, music created by the worst women to walk the earth and then when it comes to Islam you teach them just pray and say Salamu Alaykum and cover your hair. How can you be surprised that her ideology is not revelation bound.

@MFSYG2035 They will say we wont take men's interpetation so we will go to the language okay the works in the language was also written by men what will you do now? if you accept the works in language but not the intepretation of islam we ask why have you differntiated?

The emerging trend from TikTok of Muslim girls rejecting hadith, rejecting clear rulings from the Quran such as obedience to the husband, and many other established matters of the deen. (They are Kuffar btw) Many people have brought their own explanations for why this is happening. Some say they have “found the truth” and realised Islam is oppressive. Some say they only reject the “misogynistic” hadith. Some say religion was interpreted by men, therefore it naturally belittles women. What if I told you it’s none of that? Anyways, the primary driver behind this discourse is actually quite simple. Allah ﷻ told you in the Quran. The Prophet ﷺ told you in the hadith. The Salaf told you in countless athar. Protect your women. Protect your homes. Keep your women at home. The place of the woman is her home. The role of the woman is a mother and wife. Protect them physically, mentally, and spiritually from corruption. The kuffar told you the exact opposite. Dilute your religion down to salah, fasting, and saying salam. Keep Islam inside the masjid. Keep Islam out of education. Keep Islam out of culture. Keep Islam out of family life. Keep Islam out of public affairs. And you obeyed the latter. Now you are reaping the harvest of your own actions. Allah ﷻ says: “Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea because of what people’s hands have earned, so He may let them taste part of the consequence of what they have done that perhaps they will return.” (Surah al-Rum 30:41) Whenever the Salafi or “religious” person in your community told you: Cover your women. Women are for the home. Don’t let them work with men it is haram. Keep your women away from corrupt influences. Keep your women off social media. Be cautious of unrestricted free mixing. Guard your households. You called him an extremist. You mocked him. You laughed at him. Years later, your daughters, sisters, and wives are free mixing with men under the banners of “work” and “education.” Arguing with their parents about how they can go on holiday. Posting their faces and bodies on social media. Going on dates. The home has been abandoned as the centre of family life. Social media has become the primary teacher. Many post themselves publicly for thousands of strangers to consume while revealing more and more of themselves with every passing year. Leaving nothing but the head hair for the husband. Then people act shocked when the same ideas that dominate social media begin dominating their beliefs. Meanwhile, the practising religious man you mocked years ago is still married. His household is intact. His family was raised upon boundaries. His women are covered till today. None of his daughters are arguing on Twitter about virginity being not important. The private matters of his womenfolk remain private. He is not constantly dealing with ideological battles imported from TikTok and Instagram. The same people you laughed at were warning you about the exact problems you are now experiencing. This is happening because many people no longer fear Allah ﷻ as He deserves to be feared. They fear social pressure more than revelation. They fear being called “backward” more than being in opposition to Allah and His Messenger ﷺ. Allah ﷻ says: “O you who believe, if you fear Allah, He will grant you a criterion, remove from you your misdeeds, and forgive you. And Allah is the Possessor of great bounty.” (Surah al-Anfal 8:29)