10 somali guys simping for madow girl

[ina-cilmi]

Ok free palestine and all that but like worry about your own land first lmao. Is palestine more important than somalis in galbeed, uyghurs in china or rohingyas for example? Why is palestine exclusively the ummah thing is it because they are arab? besides they got conquered all the time. Dont tell me its because of al aqsa

this whole comparing thing is weird to begin with. Why do you want to compare the suffering of muslims? Palestine is probably the most well known cause though which is why it gets so much media coverage. not to mention their suffering is inflicted by (partly)descendants of the holocaust on other jews so the western world is gonna back it.

and who even mentioned aqsa? if this hadith is sahih as albani says then the life of a muslim is more sacred to Allah than the Ka'bah let alone al aqsa. Again, there is no need to compare the suffering of muslims

 

[ina-cilmi]

I believe al-Albani when he says there is no proof in the book of Sunnah. Plus, since slavery no longer exists, then wouldn’t the requirement for the hijab(according to this interpretation) likewise be abolished? There’s no need to distinguish between slave and free women because everyone is a free woman.

no it wouldnt be abolished as it could make a return once the muslims(generally speaking) pick up jihad once more.

Regardless, it seems there's a valid difference of opinion. No need to attack one another

 

[World]

no it wouldnt be abolished as it could make a return once the muslims(generally speaking) pick up jihad once more.

Regardless, it seems there's a valid difference of opinion. No need to attack one another

Well then the obligation of hijab would return once more again, no?

 

[Mudug_gyal]

this whole comparing thing is weird to begin with. Why do you want to compare the suffering of muslims? Palestine is probably the most well known cause though which is why it gets so much media coverage. not to mention their suffering is inflicted by (partly)descendants of the holocaust on other jews so the western world is gonna back it.

and who even mentioned aqsa? if this hadith is sahih as albani says then the life of a muslim is more sacred to Allah than the Ka'bah let alone al aqsa. Again, there is no need to compare the suffering of muslims

View attachment 330768

Its just that palestine is the only mentioned plight like the other muslim countries don’t exist. Didnt mean to compare only to shed light on other countries

 

[ina-cilmi]

Well then the obligation of hijab would return once more again, no?

upon them(slave women)? If we are in times of fitan according to one opinion yes in the sense that it is practiced due to re-emergence of slaves. If there is a valid disagreement and ur opinion is also valid then even without times of fitan they'd have to wear hijab.

also I dont like the word "return", its always been there, just not utilized. its like having no gold. men cannot wear gold but if there is no gold ofc theres no way for them to wear it, you cant say the ruling is abolished when there is no gold and returns when there is no gold. no the ruling is still in place, just not utilized in the sense that there is no gold.

 

[World]

upon them(slave women)? If we are in times of fitan according to one opinion yes in the sense that it is practiced due to re-emergence of slaves. If there is a valid disagreement and ur opinion is also valid then even without times of fitan they'd have to wear hijab.

also I dont like the word "return", its always been there, just not utilized. its like having no gold. men cannot wear gold but if there is no gold ofc theres no way for them to wear it, you cant say the ruling is abolished when there is no gold and returns when there is no gold. no the ruling is still in place, just not utilized in the sense that there is no gold.

According to your understanding the hijab was introduced to distinguish between social class(slave vs free), correct? And if there is fitnah then all have to wear hijab, correct?

So according to this understanding if the social class doesn’t exist anymore(free vs slave), then the reason why the hijab was introduced likewise doesn’t exist anymore. Everyone is a free woman. Now, the hijab only exists to prevent fitnah, but otherwise women don’t need to wear a hijab.

You said: “as it could make a return“. Well, according to this understanding, then the necessity of the hijab(distinguishing between social class) would likewise return again.

You can see now, how this classical understanding can easily be used as an argument to say the hijab is no longer an obligation. Perhaps, fitnah depends on culture? In countries where showing hair isn’t a fitnah, they don’t need to wear hijab?

 

[Angelina]

no it wouldnt be abolished as it could make a return once the muslims(generally speaking) pick up jihad once more.

Regardless, it seems there's a valid difference of opinion. No need to attack one another

Cilmi you weaken the argument for hijab when you think it’s merely based on social status rather than the fact that men women are meant to be modest due to biologically being able to attract men’s lust.

What makes I a free woman more attractive than a slave? Also, men used to buy slave women for sexual reasons literally. They were far more sexualized than free women.

 

[Angelina]

According to your understanding the hijab was introduced to distinguish between social class(slave vs free), correct? And if there is fitnah then all have to wear hijab, correct?

So according to this understanding if the social class doesn’t exist anymore(free vs slave), then the reason why the hijab was introduced likewise doesn’t exist anymore. Everyone is a free woman. Now, the hijab only exists to prevent fitnah, but otherwise women don’t need to wear a hijab.

You said: “as it could make a return“. Well, according to this understanding, then the necessity of the hijab(distinguishing between social class) would likewise return again.

You can see now, how this classical understanding can easily be used as an argument to say the hijab is no longer an obligation. Perhaps, fitnah depends on culture? In countries where showing hair isn’t a fitnah, they don’t need to wear hijab?

I don’t think these people realize because they simply don’t want to think. They’re literally undermining hijab and it’s a contradiction for them to argue that Muslim women have to wear hijab due their bodies being a fitnah for men. Yet, a slave women who might be 10x prettier than me isn’t a fitnah because of her social status?

Spoiler

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

 

[Angelina]

we live in times of fitan where even slave girls are desirable so she'd have to cover

Slave women were always seen as desirable. That’s why this whole debacle is illogical. Cilmi slave women were mostly enslaved in the Arab world for sexual reasons. In fact there is less of a fitnah today and society is safer now. Women on average don’t get kidnapped and sold as concubines whilst walking around.

Hence that’s a cope of an argument.

 

[World]

I don’t think these people realize because they simply don’t want to think. They’re literally undermining hijab and it’s a contradiction for them to argue that Muslim women have to wear hijab due their bodies being a fitnah for men. Yet, a slave women who might be 10x prettier than me isn’t a fitnah because of her social status?

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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

 

[Angelina]

Spoiler

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

It’s illegal in vast majority of countries of the world for women to be topless today. Jurists classification of modesty would be deemed as immoral in western countries, and they would get told to cover up lmao.
[/spoiler]

Spoiler

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

 

[World]

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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

 

[نور]

I believe al-Albani when he says there is no proof in the book of Sunnah. Plus, since slavery no longer exists, then wouldn’t the requirement for the hijab(according to this interpretation) likewise be abolished? There’s no need to distinguish between slave and free women because everyone is a free woman.

Who is greater in status when it comes to Hadith, Abu Dawud, Al Bayhaqi, Ibn Taymiyyah and others on one side or Al Albani?

The narrations are sound and they are very numerous.

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سَلَامٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، عَنْ حُمَيْدٍ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ أَقَامَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَيْنَ خَيْبَرَ وَالْمَدِينَةِ ثَلَاثًا يُبْنَى عَلَيْهِ بِصَفِيَّةَ بِنْتِ حُيَيٍّ فَدَعَوْتُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ إِلَى وَلِيمَتِهِ، فَمَا كَانَ فِيهَا مِنْ خُبْرٍ وَلَا لَحْمٍ، أَمَرَ بِالأَنْطَاعِ فَأُلْقِيَ فِيهَا مِنَ التَّمْرِ وَالْأَقِطِ وَالسَّمْنِ فَكَانَتْ وَلِيمَتَهُ، فَقَالَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ إِحْدَى أُمَّهَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَوْ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُهُ فَقَالُوا إِنْ حَجَبَهَا فَهْيَ مِنْ أُمَّهَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَحْجُبُهَا فَهْيَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُهُ فَلَمَّا ارْتَحَلَ وَطَى لَهَا خَلْفَهُ وَمَدَّ الْحِجَابَ بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَ النَّاس.​

The Prophet(scw) stayed for three days at a place between Khaibar and Medina, and there he consummated his marriage with Safiyya bint Huyay. I invited the Muslims to a banquet which included neither meat nor bread. The Prophet (scw) ordered for the leather dining sheets to be spread, and then dates, dried yogurt and butter were provided over it, and that was the Walima (banquet) of the Prophet. The Muslims asked whether Safiyya would be considered as his wife or as a slave girl of what his right hands possessed. Then they said, "If the Prophet (scw) screens her from the people, then she Is the Prophet's wife but if he does not screen her, then she is a slave girl." So when the Prophet (scw) proceeded, he made a place for her (on the camel) behind him and screened her from people.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5159 - Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah) - كتاب النكاح - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic

sunnah.com

Are you also going to deny this report on the sahihayn

The more likely scenario is this: The Byzantine and Sassanid Empire considered hijab and veiling as a mark of high social status, punished lower status people who were modest and they inherited it from the Assyrian Empire penal code(which I will quote below). Once the sahaba conquered these land, their elite did not want this privilege to be given to those they saw as beneath them, merely for being believers.

This is not true as the sahaba did not conquer Roma and Persia during the prophet scw lifetime

 

[Keep it a boqol]

Umar bin Khattab ra was reported to have beaten a slave women for wearing hijab because she was imitating free Muslim women. The athar from the prophet scw and the sahaba who support this view is very strong..

i thought it’s haram to hit a slave and hitting slave means they are free as expiation?? could you give me some clarity ? on this?

 

[World]

Who is greater in status when it comes to Hadith, Abu Dawud, Al Bayhaqi, Ibn Taymiyyah and others on one side or Al Albani?

The narrations are sound and they are very numerous.

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سَلَامٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، عَنْ حُمَيْدٍ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ أَقَامَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَيْنَ خَيْبَرَ وَالْمَدِينَةِ ثَلَاثًا يُبْنَى عَلَيْهِ بِصَفِيَّةَ بِنْتِ حُيَيٍّ فَدَعَوْتُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ إِلَى وَلِيمَتِهِ، فَمَا كَانَ فِيهَا مِنْ خُبْرٍ وَلَا لَحْمٍ، أَمَرَ بِالأَنْطَاعِ فَأُلْقِيَ فِيهَا مِنَ التَّمْرِ وَالْأَقِطِ وَالسَّمْنِ فَكَانَتْ وَلِيمَتَهُ، فَقَالَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ إِحْدَى أُمَّهَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَوْ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُهُ فَقَالُوا إِنْ حَجَبَهَا فَهْيَ مِنْ أُمَّهَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَحْجُبُهَا فَهْيَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُهُ فَلَمَّا ارْتَحَلَ وَطَى لَهَا خَلْفَهُ وَمَدَّ الْحِجَابَ بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَ النَّاس.​

The Prophet(scw) stayed for three days at a place between Khaibar and Medina, and there he consummated his marriage with Safiyya bint Huyay. I invited the Muslims to a banquet which included neither meat nor bread. The Prophet (scw) ordered for the leather dining sheets to be spread, and then dates, dried yogurt and butter were provided over it, and that was the Walima (banquet) of the Prophet. The Muslims asked whether Safiyya would be considered as his wife or as a slave girl of what his right hands possessed. Then they said, "If the Prophet (scw) screens her from the people, then she Is the Prophet's wife but if he does not screen her, then she is a slave girl." So when the Prophet (scw) proceeded, he made a place for her (on the camel) behind him and screened her from people.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5159 - Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah) - كتاب النكاح - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic

sunnah.com

Are you also going to deny this report on the sahihayn

All of the Prophet (saw) wives had to screen themselves:

And when ye ask (the Prophet’s wives) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs.
Qur’an 33:53

And this is because:
O Wives of the Prophet! You are not like any of the other women.
Qur’an 33:32

So any woman that doesn’t screen themselves(niqab) cannot be the wife of the Prophet (saw), because the Qur’an gives a ruling that they in specific have to. Another specific ruling for the wives of the Prophet(saw), is that they weren’t allowed to remarry.

So if you are arguing that this hadith proves your argument, then why doesn’t that also apply to free woman who aren’t the wives of the Prophet(saw)?

This is not true as the sahaba did not conquer Roma and Persia during the prophet scw lifetime

Where did I say the conquest occurred during the time of the prophet?

I said only said that the Sahaba did, and that the people of Persia and Rome for thousands of years used to punish lower class for modesty after inheriting the penal code of the Assyrian Empire.

Map of the Rashidun during the Sahaba:

Assyrian Empire:

It’s completely haram to beat slaves, and there are numerous hadith that you must free them if you hit a slave. And you are saying that Umar used to beat them if they wore the hijab, and that it’s simply a coincidence that this is what the elite of Persia and Rome done for thousands of years.

 

[نور]

All of the Prophet (saw) wives had to screen themselves:

And when ye ask (the Prophet’s wives) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs.
Qur’an 33:53

And this is because:
O Wives of the Prophet! You are not like any of the other women.
Qur’an 33:32

So any woman that doesn’t screen themselves(niqab) cannot be the wife of the Prophet (saw), because the Qur’an gives a ruling that they in specific have to. Another specific ruling for the wives of the Prophet(saw), is that they weren’t allowed to remarry.

So if you are arguing that this hadith proves your argument, then why doesn’t that also apply to free woman who aren’t the wives of the Prophet(saw)?

Safiya was a pow from Kheybar her husband was killed and she was taken by the prophet, so the Sahaba argued if she will be the wife of the prophet or what his right hand possessed. they said if the prophet scw veils her she is his wife and if he doesn't she is what his right hand possessed.

What does this prove? It proves that slave women were not allowed to wear hijab as opposed to free women

Where did I state that the Sahaba conquered Roma and Persia during the prophet scw lifetime?

You said the sahaba borrowed this custom(of not allowing slave to wear hijab) from the Romans Persians when they conquered Roma/Persia, but this hadith disproves that as the sahaba already had this custom in the 7th year hijri long before they conquered those territories

 

[نور]

i thought it’s haram to hit a slave and hitting slave means they are free as expiation?? could you give me some clarity ? on this?

Amiirul Mu'mineen only beat her after she hesited on unveiling herself. He can beat even free women if they disobey him on haqq matters

 

[World]

What does this prove? It proves that slave women were not allowed to wear hijab as opposed to free women

The commandment of veil(niqab), is for the wives of the prophet (saw) specifically which is what the hadith and the Quran says, only you are the one interpreting it to mean that slaves will be physically beaten for wearing hijab.

You said the sahaba borrowed this custom(of not allowing slave to wear hijab) from the Romans Persians when they conquered Roma/Persia, but this hadith disproves that as the sahaba already had this custom in the 7th year hijri long before they conquered those territories

Stop putting words into my mouth. I have never said the Sahaba would borrow from the Romans and Persians and change our religion, they would never do such a thing.

Ah yes, the Umar hadiths that says this, right?

“ During his caliphate, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would not permit any slave women to go about veiled. He would say, “The veil is only for free women, so that they will not be harassed.” Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, Sunan Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, ed. Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī, 2: 98–99.

So, do you think that Muslim slave women don’t deserve to be protected from harassment?

 

[Angelina]

Stop putting words into my mouth. I have never said the Sahaba would borrow from the Romans and Persians and change our religion, they would never do such a thing.

Ah yes, the Umar hadiths that says this, right?

“ During his caliphate, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would not permit any slave women to go about veiled. He would say, “The veil is only for free women, so that they will not be harassed.” Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, Sunan Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, ed. Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī, 2: 98–99.

So, do you think that Muslim slave women don’t deserve to be protected from harassment?

Yes he does.

He believes so.

He won’t give you a straight answer though.

 

[World]

Yes he does.

He believes so.

He won’t give you a straight answer though.

He doesn’t believe the man that burned his pregnant wife to death in Somalia should be punished, and that it’s justice for him to be freed.

What a disgusting human. No wonder why he thinks like this.