Got it walaal.
You are now appealing to my conscience and own reasoning, moving the goal posts are we?
Last reply, Croissants, Caano Shokolaato and my Sariir are calling me.
Most Famous Somali Sheikh is in Hot Water again against Somali Female Politician
- Thread starter Qeelbax
- Start date
You are now appealing to my conscience and own reasoning, moving the goal posts are we?
Last reply, Croissants, Caano Shokolaato and my Sariir are calling me.
Hamzza
VIP
The cursing of the angels is the punishment from god what about the man she denied his rights? Tbh with you I don't see any problem with getting what's yours by force.
Nope merely interested in where this leads to. Not condemning physical abusers, medical neglecters ect because once we get to a point in which we see this as an acceptable stance then we as laymen simply cannot condemn them right?
Also, how can the Islamic courts even imprison them, when they can turn around and say they have the right to follow the opinion of Sheikh so and so from the 11th century. Where does this end?
This is what your logic leads to, so yes have a good sleep!
Yh, this discussion ends right here. I’m not interested in talking to someone who views women as objects. You sound unhinged.
Ya Cilmaani, the politics section awaits you, I'll see you there shortly brother, go get them Mufsid 'Hutus' and 'Boons'.
Me: You cannot forcibly sexually assault a person and expect a modern state to overlook this violence.
You: You see, according to this Central Asian guy from 1,000 years ago this women got paid her meher, is in this man's house so the rape is totally legal.
Just monkey logic, laangaab logic.
I cannot hypothesise as a Layman but I do have my personal views which are formed by a multitude of factors such as cultural influences affecting my moral compass etc. Some are definitely Westernised so I do not want to speak freely and sin.
You already know I am unorthodox regarding my stance on some matters. However, one thing I do not veer away from when discussing the Deen is religious precedent. Like it or loath it, I choose to remain silent and adopt a take it or leave it approach. Take @Username question, it relates to yours, if the Prophet SAWS consummated marriage with Aisha RAH well before adulthood, what is stopping someone following in his precedent as it is irrefutably Sunna? Some can of worms are best left without giving an opinion.
Last edited:
Your secularism is out of sync with the majority of your people, that is the definition of langaab logic in Somalia. You promote the separation of Mosque and State, that shit ain't gonna happen unless you have a Kacaan2.0.
For the record, the discussion is theological in nature, not my personal or Madhab stance regarding the Hanafi discussion.
Hamzza
VIP
Feminism is not compatible with Islam
What the hell is the difference between "marital rape" and "forced marital sex" in that picture?
Am I sinning for not thinking it’s okay for me to be beat up? I’m being provocative here, but this is the absurdity that your world salad comes down to. We’re not discussing abstract topics here but the lives of people around you. You either think it’s okay for people to be harmed or you don’t. It’s as simple as that.
What does feminism have to do with my point.
your religion and which I hope you do follow believes that women aren’t objects to be taken, abused and forced. Don’t use the deen for your own selfish nafs.
There has been a rise in Muslim incels like you who are devoid of any morals. Something is wrong, you’ll not getting Allah’s mercy through having a merciless approach to your fellow humans.
Like I said, I leave certain things to the scholars. My personal concept of what is right and wrong is subjective, you probably know where I stand regarding this matter without venturing into a
hole.Have a good day!
Punishing abusers isn’t just secularism though. The deen recognizes sexual and various other abuses and Somalia can easily create a system in which women sue husbands in front the Qadi. There are various opinion if not the majority and a wealth of historical instances in which women have sued husbands.
We can easily create our own system that is in line with the Sharia, but all of these word salads and ways to find minority opinions to justify rampant harm is ridiculous.
Proven my point. Just don’t get upset if a loved one gets battered. You can go to her say that a scholar so and so from the 11th century believed you can get battered.Like I said, I leave certain things to the scholars. My personal concept of what is right and wrong is subjective, you probably know where I stand regarding this matter without venturing into a
Have a good day!
it isn’t personal though is it when supposedly harming people is haram. You either think harming people is haram or not. If a non Muslim asks you about topics such the treatment of women, such as DV and other issues, how would you answer?
You simply confuse yourself and in doing so, people like you justify all sorts of terrible activities.
You are commenting on something you are unaware of.
My comment of the separation of Mosque and State alludes to his political stance on what role religion should have in a Somali State as demonstrated in other threads unrelated to what is found in General threads. He advocates for a secular state where religion plays no part in the formulation of laws, something that anathema to the overwhelming majority of Somali Muslims hence my statement.
No one was looking for a 'minority' position, a simple discussion around the rulings of a scholar is not an identification with a particular School of Thought, just itching an intellectual curiosity
The way you personalise shit and make unwarranted accusations is Qaac.
Mac Salama!
Last edited:
Weird, I thought in Islam, unlike Judaism, everyone was equal, but I guess the Quraish clan are automatically better than Somalis...
Don't forget that we have eminent scholars in very recent history who have written works deeming coffee, the early telephone and other technological advances as all impermissible and 'haram'.
Imagine asking them their opinions on marital rape. I suspect they'd have some unsavoury opinions.
90% of the Shar'a is based on speculative based ijtihad which means most are not definitive rulings and are open to scholarly criticism therefore fiqhi rulings are open to counter rulings. So who cares that a scholar wrote about marital rape in the past. Guess what, it was not part of the public discourse and was almost unheard of reality. Islamic fiqh deals with new issues as they transpire and Fiqh evolves and its called Fiqh Nawazil.
Marital rape is darar (harm) and all types of darar is impermissible, a general hadith which covers all types of harm and since this harm is specific for women, it is only women who can make that judgement. If anyone is seriously arguing that the cover of marriage disqualifies a wife from brutal sexual misconduct and using fiqhi material of the past when the issue was not part of the public discourse as evidence then that shows you exactly how ignorant they are regarding Islamic Jurisprudence.
Simple case studies to consider:
- Smoking was once permissible according to all Islamic scholars. Why has the rulings changed for the majority?
- Coffee was once considered haram according to many scholars, why has this changed?
We now know that marital rape/sexual misconduct from a husband is a real harm and isn't imaginary. We have many who live with complex trauma and PTSD? Is this not darar? If so, how can it be anything other than haram?
Imagine asking them their opinions on marital rape. I suspect they'd have some unsavoury opinions.
90% of the Shar'a is based on speculative based ijtihad which means most are not definitive rulings and are open to scholarly criticism therefore fiqhi rulings are open to counter rulings. So who cares that a scholar wrote about marital rape in the past. Guess what, it was not part of the public discourse and was almost unheard of reality. Islamic fiqh deals with new issues as they transpire and Fiqh evolves and its called Fiqh Nawazil.
Marital rape is darar (harm) and all types of darar is impermissible, a general hadith which covers all types of harm and since this harm is specific for women, it is only women who can make that judgement. If anyone is seriously arguing that the cover of marriage disqualifies a wife from brutal sexual misconduct and using fiqhi material of the past when the issue was not part of the public discourse as evidence then that shows you exactly how ignorant they are regarding Islamic Jurisprudence.
Simple case studies to consider:
- Smoking was once permissible according to all Islamic scholars. Why has the rulings changed for the majority?
- Coffee was once considered haram according to many scholars, why has this changed?
We now know that marital rape/sexual misconduct from a husband is a real harm and isn't imaginary. We have many who live with complex trauma and PTSD? Is this not darar? If so, how can it be anything other than haram?
Do you mean regarding the impermissibility of marital rape? It cannot be anything other than haram. However this ruling is circumvented by cultural considerations in many societies and not religious grounds. There is no difference of opinion that causing physical trauma to one's wife is impermissible, then how can marital rape which causes physical harm and many times even worse psychological trauma not be anything other than impermissible.
Pseudo online experts who secretly revel in seeing women harmed should not be any authority on religious matters. I suspect they would change their tune really quickly if it was their sister married to an abusive husband. But that's the hypocrisy you would expect.
reer
VIP
Trending
-
Lady who humiliated Somalis is caught by Waffen-SS (⚡omali⚡pot)- Started by Spongebob
- Replies: 84
-
-
