Taliban ban female owned shops

[Hamzza]

@Hamzza

Even better, the fitnah argument could be used, even if there was unanimous agreement that men can show their knee, the ruler could decide its a fitnah for the ladies LOOOL.

Diinta ciyaarta kadaa

 

[Angelina]

It's not my argument. In Sharia law theirs three major types of punishments that is Huduud, Qisaas and Tacsiir. And when there is difference of opinion on matters we will choose the strongest one.

Still, it hinges upon the discretion of the ruler and that was my point.

The strongest one doesn’t exist. A Salafi will tell you his argument is the strongest. A traditional Hanafi, Maliki ect will tell you his is the strongest.

 

[Angelina]

Diinta ciyaarta kadaa

It’s not an ciyaar whatsoever.

Using the fitnah argument is legitimate by some and is often used by some to stop people from doing things that could technically be halal.

I’m the last person that would play around with the deen.

 

[Hamzza]

Still, it hinges upon the discretion of the ruler and that was my point.

The strongest one doesn’t exist. A Salafi will tell you his argument is the strongest. A traditional Hanafi, Maliki ect will tell you his is the strongest.

It seems to me you have a problem with the whole concept of "Ta'zeer", I didn't invent it. Go argue with the Sahaba, the Salaf and the Khalaf.

The strongest one exists, since there is no one Ummah today the Qadi will rule what the conscience in the sect of that country is.

 

[Hamzza]

It’s not an ciyaar whatsoever.

Using the fitnah argument is legitimate by some and is often used by some to stop people from doing things that could technically be halal.

I’m the last person that would play around with the deen.

Allah swt has consistently warned the judges and rulers from committing injustices in the Quran. If a judge or a ruler uses the Quran and the Deen in a wrong way he will pay the price and it's only his responsibility. The Deen has no limitations.

 

[jemappelle]

So men who show their knees will go court and get punished?

Showinf your knees is not haram as a man, if a man wears tight trousers like some men wear skinny jeans nowadays or shorts which show his thighs or goes around topless without his shirt then the country in question can decide what kind of measure they will take against himt to prevent it happening

 

[jemappelle]

@Hamzza

Even better, the fitnah argument could be used, even if there was unanimous agreement that men can show their knee, the ruler could decide its a fitnah for the ladies LOOOL.

Angelina we both know a kneecap is a fitna for 0 women. in fact even a man showing his thigh isn't even a fitna for women.
But it is immodest and he should be reprimanded

 

[jemappelle]

There are differences of opinion. Hence since it’s the rulers decision, supposedly he can, going by your argument.

Most madhaahib do not consider the knee awrah, in the shafici madhab the knee is not considered awrah, its a minority opinion that the knee is awrah

 

[jemappelle]

Still, it hinges upon the discretion of the ruler and that was my point.

The strongest one doesn’t exist. A Salafi will tell you his argument is the strongest. A traditional Hanafi, Maliki ect will tell you his is the strongest.

No because a ruler does not come to the decision himself, he will have a discussion with a commitee of qualified scholars, lok at he situation of his country he is in, and then make a fair decision based on the Quran and sunnah.

AN example of this is in Umar ibnul khattabs time their was a very handsome man who was causing fitna to a women just by his face, so Umar ibnul khattab exiled him from the land.

The point of this, is that he was cuasing a fitna by his beuaty for the women and therefore should leave and protect women from fitna.

 

[World]

Showinf your knees is not haram as a man, if a man wears tight trousers like some men wear skinny jeans nowadays or shorts which show his thighs or goes around topless without his shirt then the country in question can decide what kind of measure they will take against himt to prevent it happening

it depends on the madhab but still in hot muslim countries 99 % of women cover their awrah but men don’t cover their especially if they go to the beach or just wear shorts that go just a bit above their knee. Male modesty isn’t held to the same standard as female modesty which is wrong. like the picture i posted of liido, all the women are covered but the men are topless or wearing shorts that show their thigh. but nobody mentions that?

 

[jemappelle]

it depends on the madhab but still in hot muslim countries 99 % of women cover their awrah but men don’t cover their especially if they go to the beach or just wear shorts that go just a bit above their knee. Male modesty isn’t held to the same standard as female modesty.

I haven't noticed that but if what you are saying is true then it shouldn't be that way.

 

[World]

No because a ruler does not come to the decision himself, he will have a discussion with a commitee of qualified scholars, lok at he situation of his country he is in, and then make a fair decision based on the Quran and sunnah.

AN example of this is in Umar ibnul khattabs time their was a very handsome man who was causing fitna to a women just by his face, so Umar ibnul khattab exiled him from the land.

The point of this, is that he was cuasing a fitna by his beuaty for the women and therefore should leave and protect women from fitna.

LOOL

 

[jemappelle]

LOOL

whats so funny

 

[World]

whats so funny

The example of umar. if he was such a fitna for women doesnt it contradict your point you were saying that women have much less sex drives than men? maybe it just depends on how you look.

 

[jemappelle]

The example of umar. if he was such a fitna for women doesnt it contradict your point you were saying that women have much less sex drives than men? maybe it just depends on how you look.

Did I say women have No sex drive at all or women have less sex drive than men?

Your clutching at straws here my boi

 

[Angelina]

I’m It seems to me you have a problem with the whole concept of "Ta'zeer", I didn't invent it. Go argue with the Sahaba, the Salaf and the Khalaf.

Nope, I literally don’t. I already knew iit’s existence. It’s needed.

The strongest one exists, since there is no one Ummah today the Qadi will rule what the conscience in the sect of that country is.

The strongest opinion is that of the qadi and the madhab of the society. That is my point.

No because a ruler does not come to the decision himself, he will have a discussion with a commitee of qualified scholars, lok at he situation of his country he is in, and then make a fair decision based on the Quran and sunnah.

That is what I meant by the discretion of the ruler. There is indeed a difference of opinion when it comes to Knees. That is a fact.

AN example of this is in Umar ibnul khattabs time their was a very handsome man who was causing fitna to a women just by his face, so Umar ibnul khattab exiled him from the land.

Okay, that doesn’t disprove my point.

The point of this, is that he was cuasing a fitna by his beuaty for the women and therefore should leave and protect women from fitna.

Is that sahih. People can’t help how they look. Are you telling me someone who was born very handsome should be exiled from family because Allah created them this way?

 

[Angelina]

Most madhaahib do not consider the knee awrah, in the shafici madhab the knee is not considered awrah, its a minority opinion that the knee is awrah

It is still an opinion. Even IslamQA mentions it is a valid opinion although they believe it isn’t Awrah. They mentioned it as clear it is one that is of weight.

 

[jemappelle]

That is what I meant by the discretion of the ruler. There is indeed a difference of opinion when it comes to Knees. That is a fact.

Lets say the scholar takes the minority opinion for whatever reason, he woud have to deduce how much of a fitna and how much harm would be caused by a man showing his kneecaps in public, as it is not the same as a women wearing revealing clothes. My point is every Islamic ruling has a different purpose and hikma behind it, so it should be treated accorddingly.

Is that sahih. People can’t help how they look. Are you telling me someone who was born very handsome should be exiled from family because Allah created them this way?

It is sahih, also whats your problem, just because a person can't help how he looks doesn't mean anything, they are still a fitna to society, someone who is causing a massive fitna to the society should be consulted by people of knowledge and they should decide the best possible action, this is a case specific situationw we are looking at, not a general ruling of exiling, my point was, a ruler has to look at the context of the situation and make a ruling even if it doesn't have a black and white Islamic ruling, a ruler can even ban something halal if it causes something haram.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/201633/the-story-of-umars-exiling-of-nasr-ibn-hajjaaj-from-madinah

 

[Angelina]

Lets say the scholar takes the minority opinion for whatever reason, he woud have to deduce how much of a fitna and how much harm would be caused by a man showing his kneecaps in public, as it is not the same as a women wearing revealing clothes. My point is every Islamic ruling has a different purpose and hikma behind it, so it should be treated accorddingly.

He wouldn’t have to deduce anything. If that is the overwhelming opinion of his madhab and scholars, that is what they’d go with. The opinion is a valid one among certain madhabs and scholars as IslamQa pointed out.

It is sahih, also whats your problem, just because a person can't help how he looks doesn't mean anything, they are still a fitna to society, someone who is causing a massive fitna to the society should be consulted by people of knowledge and they should decide the best possible action, this is a case specific situationw we are looking at, not a general ruling of exiling, my point was, a ruler has to look at the context of the situation and make a ruling even if it doesn't have a black and white Islamic ruling, a ruler can even ban something halal if it causes something haram.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/201633/the-story-of-umars-exiling-of-nasr-ibn-hajjaaj-from-madinah

Fascinating. Really interesting read. He must of been ridiculously handsome if the women of Medina who during that time were incredibly pious but found him too good looking.

 

[jemappelle]

He wouldn’t have to deduce anything. If that is the overwhelming opinion of his madhab and scholars, that is what they’d go with. The opinion is a valid one among certain madhabs and scholars as IslamQa pointed out.

I'm talking about the measures he takes to prevent someone from doing it, a ta'zeer punishmnet is based on the judge and therefor needs to take into account the context of the society we live in

For example you know saudi arabia, the shuyookh there deduced such as albani that niqaab is obligatory for them, in actual fact, the vast majority opinion is that niqaab is not obligatory, and it is very hard to find evidence that it is, but due to the fact, that if you let women wear no niqaab, they figured that because the hijab can easy be tainted and gradually reveal more and more of a womens awrah, an example is constantly pushing hijab back to show more hair or making it loose, making it into a turban, wearing tighter clothes, wearing clothes with reveal body shape etc, the scholars decided that making niqaaab obligatory for the public would prevent any pushing of the boundaries and women would not try to taint this.
source- I got this from a madeenah graduate
My point is life is not black and white, in different situations different rulings will apply for the betterment of society.

An example would be triple talaq which I am sure you are familiar of