Most Famous Somali Sheikh is in Hot Water again against Somali Female Politician

[Angelina]

You are arguing aimlessly.

Firstly, I have made it clear that my aim is to satisfy an intellectual curiosity, you got a problem with that?

How am I causing major issues by asking an Cilm question regarding Classical Hanafi Fiqh? GTHOH, Cilm is Cilm, nothing wrong about it? I am curious about the opinion of Classical Hanafi Fiqh scholars like Burhan regarding the subjects raised here, you got a problem with me satisfying my curiosity? If you do, take a hike cos I don't need your Calaacal.

Yes, imagine this thread was about a man who had a wife with cancer and I use this time to suggest that actually he doesn’t need to get her medical attention as that is what certain scholars believe. Yes, great timing!

Scholars believe he can let her waste away with cancer and not provide her Chemo!

oh if you attack me, I’m merely satisfying my curiosity!

We can do that with women’s education and an array of different topics. Funnily enough there isn’t any intellectual arguments that is about harming YOU is there? Just a passing observation.

I never made any claims, just emphasised that there are classical Hanafi Fiqh rulings such as the one I referenced.

Listen, regarding your spoiler, you have your views, so do I, but I didn't ask for yours and I ain't shoving mine down your throat so spare your reasoning. My pursuit of knowledge is not a concern of yours or anyone else for that matter.

Wasn’t a view. That is an Islamic fact that man cannot jump on his wife with an actual Sahih comment from the Prophet s.a.w. it is a fact that one needs to start with foreplay.

sahih Hadith is simply a view. A fiqhi opinion = facts. LOL.

You read Arabic, don't you? That IslamWeb article clearly shares Burhan's stance regarding certain circumstances. Their Fiqh committee includes renowned scholars who practice in Qatar. Hence, it is not like we are discussing a matter that has been relegated to the past Sharia speaking hence the curiosity.

Islamqa also mentioned the no medical treatment view as well, but also towards the end say that view isn’t legitimate and they provided references with scholars in the past that believed it. So what’s your point? Yet that view has most definitely been relegated to the past now.

I have no end goal, just got inquisitive after coming across a Hanafi classical ruling on copulation. What is your aim in haranguing me, and even @Hamzza by accusing him of being Xaasid just because he shared other Hanafi scholars? Shit has got you obsessed to the point of madness.

Hamzaa also tried to argue that a man doesn’t have to provide medical attention simply because scholars of the past believed so when I noted that this too was a belief. That is a great example of lack of common sense because in the past doctors and hospitals simply weren’t seen as needed. People relied on home medication due to their lack of medical knowledge. One must be utter brain dead and yes xaasidnimo to have that view in this day and age.

 

[anonimo]

Yes, imagine this thread was about a man who had a wife with cancer and I use this time to suggest that actually he doesn’t need to get her medical attention as that is what certain scholars believe. Yes, great timing!

Scholars believe he can let her waste away with cancer and not provide her Chemo!

oh if you attack me, I’m merely satisfying my curiosity!

Wasn’t a view. That is an Islamic fact that man cannot jump on his wife with an actual Sahih comment from the Prophet s.a.w. it is a fact that one needs to start with foreplay.



Islamqa also mentioned the no medical treatment view as well, but also towards the end say that view isn’t legitimate and they provide references with scholars in the past that believed it. So what’s your point? That view has most definitely been relegated to the past now.


Hamzaa also tried to argue that a man doesn’t have to provide medical attention simply because scholars of the past believed so when I noted that this too was a belief. That is a great example of lack of common sense because in the past doctors and hospitals simply weren’t seen as needed. People relied on home medication due to their lack of medical knowledge. One must be utter brain dead and yes xaasidnimo to have that view in this day and age.

You are going round in circles walaal. I chose to research Burhan's work as he is one of the leading Hanafi Fiqh scholars regarding the subject matter I was curious about. As a mere laywoman who is not a scholar, your words carry no weight with me regarding the subject I am researching. You can give all the examples you want but you are barking up the wrong tree as I am curious about classical Hanafi school of thought, not the ramblings of a hyped up Angelina. According to your logic, it can be construed that these scholars were lacking because they ignored Hadiths available to them when formulating Fiqh despite them having a higher Islamic intellectual status than you. Caajib!

Nothing has been relegated to the past if it is still being referenced in a mainstream Islam website and by the scholars associated with it on IslamWeb.

You attacked @Hamzza for being Xaasid simply because he shared other Hanafi scholarly sources to illustrate to @World that such a viewpoint was commonplace among Hanafi scholars of centuries past. Your issue has to do with the presentation of scholarly evidence that does not sit well with your sensitivities. He did not even quote you but referenced me.

Let's not waste energy further, have a Good Day dear.

 

[Angelina]

You are going round in circles walaal. I chose to research Burhan's work as he is one of the leading Hanafi Fiqh scholars regarding the subject matter I was curious about. As a mere laywoman who is not a scholar, your words carry no weight with me regarding the subject I am researching.

My words don’t, but the vast majority of the scholars who oppose that view certainly do. This isn’t a case of a difference of opinion that doesn’t cause direct human harm. This is an actual societal issue with people’s well-being at stake.

You can give all the examples you want but you are barking up the wrong tree as I am curious about classical Hanafi school of thought, not the ramblings of a hyped up Angelina.

According to your logic, it can be construed that these scholars were lacking because they ignored Hadiths available to them when formulating Fiqh despite them having a higher Islamic intellectual status than you. Caajib!

Not simply my logic but the logic of the majority of the scholars who believe that forcing one’s wife goes against Quran and Sunnah As it is a form of harm. Why do you think the view you posted isn’t common and easy to find? Why is the majority of the opinion the opposite? Why would it be seen as haram? You’re Train of thinking can lead to a point in which you could easily defend men that behave that way by sighting scholars such as Burhan and saying he clearly has a better understanding so men that sexually abuse their wives can do so and are merely following his opinion. Where does this end? You’ll also find opinions about severe physical violence as well? I’m a mere lay woman and if a man hits his wife, does this mean this cannot be condemned since there are scholars of the past who are more knowledgeable than me that allowed it?

Nothing has been relegated to the past if it is still being referenced in a mainstream Islam website and by the scholars associated with it on IslamWeb.

I used the medicine point to point out that a view that isn’t held whatsoever by any scholar in this present age is still referenced in fiqh discussions by scholars, yet clearly that view is most definitely has been regulated to the past. You’ll not find any modern scholars believing a man can refuse to take his wife to the doctors. You simply won’t and that is my point.

You attacked @Hamzaa for being Xaasid simply because he shared other Hanafi scholarly sources to illustrate to @World that such a viewpoint was commonplace among Hanafi scholars of centuries past. He did not even quote you but referenced me.

Let's not waste energy further, have a Good Day dear.

don’t you dare call me dear please. Thanks

 

[NordicSomali]

He is a learned Muslim scholar who does his best to spread Islam.

So many terrorists used to listen him

 

[anonimo]

My words don’t but the vast majority of the scholars who oppose that view certainly do


Not simply my logic but the logic of the majority of the scholars who believe that forcing one’s wife goes against Quran and Sunnah As it is a form of harm. Why do you think the view you posted isn’t common and easy to find?

I used the medicine point to point out that a view that isn’t held whatsoever by any scholar in this present age is still referenced in fiqh discussions by scholars, yet clearly that view is most definitely has been regulated to the past.






don’t you dare call me dear please. Thanks

Most scholars does mean all scholars hence there is a difference of opinion depending on which Caalim one subscribes to. As laymen, we follow our own respective scholars and leave debate as to who is right and wrong to the jurists. You are not in a position to criticise scholars, Fawzan can criticise his peers logic but certainly not some random Xalimo.

Most scholars believe marriage without a Waali is invalid apart from some Hanafis in certain situations. Are they wrong?

 

[Angelina]

Most scholars does mean all scholars hence there is a difference of opinion depending on which Caalim one subscribes to. As laymen, we follow our own respective scholars and leave debate as to who is right and wrong to the jurists. You are not in a position to criticise scholars, Fawzan can criticise his peers logic but certainly not some random Xalimo.

Most doesn’t mean all, it means most. And the vast majority believe in the harm principle. You’ve identified two and you want to run with it.

Seriously answer this question:

If a scholarly opinion from the past dictates that you don’t have to take your cancer striken wife to hospital, do you think that is morally acceptable?

Where do you draw the line. That is what I don’t understand with you. You can literally justify medical neglect, physical abuse and the like.

Most scholars believe marriage without a Waali is invalid apart from some Hanafis in certain situations. Are they wrong?

Ah that was my worry and you’ve fallen into the trap I was afraid you’d fall into.


You’re Train of thinking can lead to a point in which you could easily defend men that behave that way by sighting scholars such as Burhan and saying he clearly has a better understanding so men that sexually abuse their wives can do so and are merely following his opinion. Where does this end? You’ll also find opinions about severe physical violence as well? I’m a mere lay woman and if a man hits his wife, does this mean this cannot be condemned since there are scholars of the past who are more knowledgeable than me that allowed it?

 

[Hamzza]

@Angelina I'm struggling to understand your point. Are you saying that the scholars of the past believed it was not obligatory for the man to provide medicine for his wife because doctors at that time were rare and people were treated in homes by semi-professional doctors, now that hospitals are so widespread modern scholars changed their tune and believe it's the responsibility of the husband to provide medical care for his wife? Are you applying this phenomenon to the case of martial rape and saying past scholars' opinions on forced sex inside marriage are invalid now because times changed?

 

[NordicSomali]

Yes, imagine this thread was about a man who had a wife with cancer and I use this time to suggest that actually he doesn’t need to get her medical attention as that is what certain scholars believe. Yes, great timing!

Scholars believe he can let her waste away with cancer and not provide her Chemo!

oh if you attack me, I’m merely satisfying my curiosity!

We can do that with women’s education and an array of different topics. Funnily enough there isn’t any intellectual arguments that is about harming YOU is there? Just a passing observation.


Wasn’t a view. That is an Islamic fact that man cannot jump on his wife with an actual Sahih comment from the Prophet s.a.w. it is a fact that one needs to start with foreplay.

sahih Hadith is simply a view. A fiqhi opinion = facts. LOL.



Islamqa also mentioned the no medical treatment view as well, but also towards the end say that view isn’t legitimate and they provided references with scholars in the past that believed it. So what’s your point? Yet that view has most definitely been relegated to the past now.


Hamzaa also tried to argue that a man doesn’t have to provide medical attention simply because scholars of the past believed so when I noted that this too was a belief. That is a great example of lack of common sense because in the past doctors and hospitals simply weren’t seen as needed. People relied on home medication due to their lack of medical knowledge. One must be utter brain dead and yes xaasidnimo to have that view in this day and age.

@Angelina , why are you afraid of holding views that happen to be against Islam? You don’t need to refere to the hadiths to conclude that rape is wrong, these are universal moral principles. Don’t be afraid of thinking independently.

 

[Angelina]

@Angelina I'm struggling to understand your point. Are you saying that the scholars of the past believed it was not obligatory for the man to provide medicine for his wife because doctors at that time were rare and people were treated in homes by semi-professional doctors, now that hospitals are so widespread modern scholars changed their tune and believe it's the responsibility of the husband to provide medical care for his wife? Are you applying this phenomenon to the case of martial rape and saying past scholars' opinions on forced sex inside marriage are invalid now because times changed?

Yes, similarly to way times have changed and we now know that smoking has an impact on lungs. There is far too much literature out there that talks about how force can impact a woman’s body and mental health. Look at this text which articulates this rather well:


And Ar-Razi writes:

لَا إِيصَالَ الضَّرَرِ إِلَيْهَا بَيَّنَ أَنَّ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنَ الزَّوْجَيْنِ حَقًّا عَلَى الْآخَرِ
No harm should come to her. It has been clarified that each one of the spouses has a right over the other.
Source: Mafātīḥ al-ghayb 2:228

We can use such general principles in Islam to develop new rulings for new issues we encounter such as marital rape. This is the method by which Islamic law develops and adapts to local needs if no precedent can be found.

Marital rape and domestic violence in Islamic law

www.abuaminaelias.com

With regards to marital sexual abuse, we don’t even need to site ‘time’ as classical scholars from the past talk about how man isn’t allowed to harm his wife via intimacy and we also have the harm component.

The time ruling was something I saw in IslamicQA with regards to medical treatment actually because Urf is definitely influenced by time and culture.

 

[Angelina]

@Angelina , why are you afraid of holding views that happen to be against Islam? You don’t need to refere to the hadiths to conclude that rape is wrong, these are universal moral principles. Don’t be afraid of thinking independently.

moral principles is why the vast majority of scholars are against sexual abuse, this doesn’t go against Islam. You’ll find that the ones that believe a husband can use force are a minority and I find the lack of care of how harm impacts humans all for the sake of intellectualism down right sickening.

 

[Hamzza]

Yes, similarly to way times have changed and we know that smoking has an impact on their lungs and we know this now.

With regards to marital sexual abuse, we don’t even need to site ‘time’ as classical scholars from the past talk about how man isn’t allowed to harm his wife via intimacy and we also have the harm component.

The time ruling was something I saw in IslamicQA with regards to medical treatment actually because Urf is definitely influenced by time and culture.

@Angelina you are forgetting the root cause of forced sex which is the wife refusing to have sexual intercourse with her husband without valid reasons, because maybe she was not in mood for sex.

-Allah caused the disease.
-The Wife caused the forced sexual intercourse by refusing her legal husband without valid reasons.

 

[Angelina]

@Angelina you are forgetting the root cause of forced sex which is the wife refusing to have sexual intercourse with her husband without valid reasons, because maybe she was not in mood for sex.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Read this:

If a man calls his wife to bed and she refuses for no reason and he spends the night angry with her, then the angels will curse her until the morning.
Source: Sahih Bukhari 3065, Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi

Some people have cited this tradition in an attempt to prove that Islam condones marital rape, but careful consideration will demonstrate that it is actually a proof against marital rape.

In this very specific situation, the wife refuses to answer her husband’s request to join him in bed. She does not have a valid excuse to refuse him such as being preoccupied or ill or tired. Rather, she refuses him out of a mean-spirited attitude only.

The Prophet warns such women of the negative moral consequences of this inexplicable behavior, but he gives no concession to the husband to take his right by force. If forced sexual compliance was an acceptable option, we could reasonably infer that the Prophet would have mentioned it here but he did not.


Also, it isn’t the only root cause as a woman can say no if she is sick, severely tired, being mistreated by her husband, if he has bad hygiene ect. A selfish man will force her especially in those circumstances.

-The Wife caused the forced sexual intercourse by refusing her legal husband without valid reasons.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Where does that mentality end? It’s how Domestic abusers think, she annoyed me so I beat her to the pulp so she’s what has caused the abuse.

It’s concerning seek help, @anonimo this is the man you’re defending and saying I was wrong to think he was xaasid.

 

[anonimo]

Yes, imagine this thread was about a man who had a wife with cancer and I use this time to suggest that actually he doesn’t need to get her medical attention as that is what certain scholars believe. Yes, great timing!

Scholars believe he can let her waste away with cancer and not provide her Chemo!

oh if you attack me, I’m merely satisfying my curiosity!

We can do that with women’s education and an array of different topics. Funnily enough there isn’t any intellectual arguments that is about harming YOU is there? Just a passing observation.


Wasn’t a view. That is an Islamic fact that man cannot jump on his wife with an actual Sahih comment from the Prophet s.a.w. it is a fact that one needs to start with foreplay.

sahih Hadith is simply a view. A fiqhi opinion = facts. LOL.



Islamqa also mentioned the no medical treatment view as well, but also towards the end say that view isn’t legitimate and they provided references with scholars in the past that believed it. So what’s your point? Yet that view has most definitely been relegated to the past now.


Hamzaa also tried to argue that a man doesn’t have to provide medical attention simply because scholars of the past believed so when I noted that this too was a belief. That is a great example of lack of common sense because in the past doctors and hospitals simply weren’t seen as needed. People relied on home medication due to their lack of medical knowledge. One must be utter brain dead and yes xaasidnimo to have that view in this day and age.

This is Groundhog Day.

You have different Schools of Thought and how their respective jurists have reasoned Sharia is independent.

You as a Salafi Fawzan follower the Ahlal Hadeeth reasoning hence the emphasis on Hadeeth among their jurists, and this also explains there is a disagreement with Hanafis regarding marriage Waali as there is the Hadith regarding No Marriage without a Waali which the Hanafis did not use in their Qisas. See my point?

I am not arguing for one scholar or the other but merely emphasising that there are different scholarly opinions on many matters hence I adopt a neutral position within my own Madhab leaving it to scholars to differentiate between themselves.

I will defer to my own Caalim but to each his own regarding others hence why I am not bothering with your IslamQa references. Wasn't Sheikh Munajid of IslamQa the one who previously stated women cannot drive cars because it leads to evil? Did other scholarly schools subscribe to the same reasoning? No. Did they condemn each other in a sectarian ideological minefield? No.

I never mentioned your debate with Hamza, I referenced your outburst to his sharing of info with me, get your facts straight.

Lastly, what I choose to do with my quest for Cilm is none of your business frankly so what is there to debate?

 

[Thegoodshepherd]

It does not matter what any scholar says, the state is obligated to punish any husband who rapes his wife. It is a violent assault.

If a woman shows up to a police station and says "my husband raped me" the state is obligated to investiagte and bring charges if the evidence is strong enough. No one cares what some Central Asian guy from 1000 years to say about her being "nashiz" or not.

 

[Angelina]

This is Groundhog Day.

You have different Schools of Thought and how their respective jurists have reasoned Sharia is independent.

You as a Salafi Fawzan follower the Ahlal Hadeeth reasoning hence the emphasis on Hadeeth among their jurists, and this also explains there is a disagreement with Hanafis regarding marriage Waali as there is the Hadith regarding No Marriage without a Waali which the Hanafis did not use in their Qisas. See my point?

I am not arguing for one scholar or the other but merely emphasising that there are different scholarly opinions on many matters hence I adopt a neutral position within my own Madhab leaving it to scholars to differentiate between themselves.

I will defer to my own Caalim but to each his own regarding others hence why I am not bothering with your IslamQa references. Wasn't Sheikh Munajid of IslamQa the one who previously stated women cannot drive cars because it leads to evil? Did other scholarly schools subscribe to the same reasoning? No. Did they condemn each other in a sectarian ideological minefield? No.

I never mentioned your debate with Hamza, I referenced your outburst to his sharing of info with me, get your facts straight.

Lastly, what I choose to do with my quest for Cilm is none of your business frankly so what is there to debate?

You’ve replied to the wrong post, you’ve replied to this post already and not the new one. Reply to the new one not this one.

 

[Angelina]

Most doesn’t mean all, it means most. And the vast majority believe in the harm principle. You’ve identified two and you want to run with it.

Seriously answer this question:

If a scholarly opinion from the past dictates that you don’t have to take your cancer striken wife to hospital, do you think that is morally acceptable?

Where do you draw the line. That is what I don’t understand with you. You can literally justify medical neglect, physical abuse and the like.



Ah that was my worry and you’ve fallen into the trap I was afraid you’d fall into.


You’re Train of thinking can lead to a point in which you could easily defend men that behave that way by sighting scholars such as Burhan and saying he clearly has a better understanding so men that sexually abuse their wives can do so and are merely following his opinion. Where does this end? You’ll also find opinions about severe physical violence as well? I’m a mere lay woman and if a man hits his wife, does this mean this cannot be condemned since there are scholars of the past who are more knowledgeable than me that allowed it?

@anonimo reply to this. Very interested to see your views.

The things is, when people hold views that can put others in danger, it isn’t simply ‘YoUr view’ as another human is dealing with the harm.

 

[Username]

The bill only bans rape and child marriage (by raising the age of consent). It doesn't mention khaanis. Sadly too many somali men love the status quo because they want to marry child brides who can't consent to them and get away with rape.

Question for Muslims, how do you recognise that this is bad but then defend the Aisha thing lol, or do prophets get special treatment? Genuinely curious.

Do you go with the "different time period" reasoning?

 

[anonimo]

Most doesn’t mean all, it means most. And the vast majority believe in the harm principle. You’ve identified two and you want to run with it.

Seriously answer this question:

If a scholarly opinion from the past dictates that you don’t have to take your cancer striken wife to hospital, do you think that is morally acceptable?

Where do you draw the line. That is what I don’t understand with you. You can literally justify medical neglect, physical abuse and the like.



Ah that was my worry and you’ve fallen into the trap I was afraid you’d fall into.


You’re Train of thinking can lead to a point in which you could easily defend men that behave that way by sighting scholars such as Burhan and saying he clearly has a better understanding so men that sexually abuse their wives can do so and are merely following his opinion. Where does this end? You’ll also find opinions about severe physical violence as well? I’m a mere lay woman and if a man hits his wife, does this mean this cannot be condemned since there are scholars of the past who are more knowledgeable than me that allowed it?

@anonimo reply to this. Very interested to see your views.

The things is, when people hold views that can put others in danger, it isn’t simply ‘YoUr view’ as another human is dealing with the harm.

My response was to the above quote, sorry, replied to the previous post in error.

 

[anonimo]

It does not matter what any scholar says, the state is obligated to punish any husband who rapes his wife. It is a violent assault.

If a woman shows up to a police station and says "my husband raped me" the state is obligated to investiagte and bring charges if the evidence is strong enough. No one cares what some Central Asian guy from 1000 years to say about her being "nashiz" or not.

Ya Cilmaani, the politics section awaits you, I'll see you there shortly brother, go get them Mufsid 'Hutus' and 'Boons'.

 

[Angelina]

My response was to the above quote, sorry, replied to the previous thread.

No, if wasn’t you didn’t answer any of my questions.

My question:


Seriously answer this question:

If a scholarly opinion from the past dictates that you don’t have to take your cancer striken wife to hospital, do you think that is morally acceptable?

Where do you draw the line. That is what I don’t understand with you. You can literally justify medical neglect, physical abuse and the like.

Another question:

You’re Train of thinking can lead to a point in which you could easily defend men that behave that way by sighting scholars such as Burhan and saying he clearly has a better understanding so men that sexually abuse their wives can do so and are merely following his opinion. Where does this end? You’ll also find opinions about severe physical violence as well? I’m a mere lay woman and if a man hits his wife, does this mean this cannot be condemned since there are scholars of the past who are more knowledgeable than me that allowed it?