Barkhadle1520
VIP
You are takfir worthy
Freedom of Religion law reversed
- Thread starter Barkhadle1520
- Start date
I’m not taking about that, just the general procedure.
Look, you’re misunderstanding this completely. Nobody is making haram what Allah made halal. What you’re saying shows you don’t understand fiqh or siyasa shar’iyyah at all.
In fiqh, actions are divided into five categories: wajib, mandub, mubah, makruh, and haram. Mubah means something that’s allowed. There’s no sin if you do it and no sin if you don’t. But that doesn’t mean it’s outside the scope of regulation. When a mubah act starts leading to harm or contradicts the maqasid al shari‘ah, the higher objectives of Islam, then the wali al amr, the ruler, has the right and even the responsibility to restrict it for the sake of maslahah ‘ammah, the public welfare. That’s not changing the religion. That is the religion. It’s called taqyid al mubah, and every madhhab recognizes it.
I’ll give you a clear example from the Sahabah. The Qur’an explicitly allows Muslim men to marry women from Ahl al Kitab. That’s not up for debate. Yet Umar ibn al Khattab, radiyallahu anhu, stopped the Companions from doing it when he saw the harm it was causing. He even wrote to Hudhayfah ibn al Yaman and told him to divorce his Jewish wife. Hudhayfah asked, “Do you declare her haram so that I must leave her?” Umar replied, “No, I do not say she is haram, but I fear harm for the ummah.”
Now think about that. Umar restricted something that was clearly permissible in the Qur’an because he saw the harm. Are you saying Umar ibn al Khattab made haram what Allah made halal? Are you saying he did something wrong? SubhanAllah. Umar did exactly what you are saying a leader should not do. He restricted what was mubah. So are you accusing him of doing something he should not have done?
Of course not. Every scholar, from Tabari to Qarafi to Nawawi to Ibn Hajar, accepted what Umar did as valid siyasa shar‘iyyah. No one ever claimed he contradicted the Qur’an. They all understood the principle that restricting a mubah for maslahah is not changing the law but applying it with wisdom.
And if your logic was correct, that rulers cannot restrict what is permissible, then no Muslim government could function. There would be no age limits for driving, no trade laws, no safety rules.
Setting a minimum marriage age is siyasa shar‘iyyah . It’s about maslahah. It’s about protecting nasl, nafs, and ‘aql. It’s about preventing harm. It doesn’t make marriage at younger ages haram in the sight of Allah. It simply sets a legal boundary to protect people from harm and injustice.
So no, raising the marriage age is not making halal haram. It is the wali al amr doing exactly what Islam commands, protecting the community and applying the shari‘ah with justice and mercy.
If you still insist otherwise, then be honest with yourself. are you basing your understanding on sound? Islamic reasoning? Because maintaining your position means accusing Umar ibn al Khattab himself and other salaf of doing what you claim is forbidden. I do not think you are ready to say that.
If you disagree with what I said so far, can you please articulate what exactly you disagree with in regards to what I just said, why you disagree with it, and explain your reasoning.
Okay you are confusing specific cases with general cases. Marrying a specific woman may not be a good decision, but it does not mean she was necessarily haram to marry. There is a difference between ruling on a case by case basis, and ruling in a general and indiscriminate way. If a specific marriage causes fitna, it should be avoided, but that does not equate to ruling across a large and general way that is not concerned with specific cases.
For example Umar RA ruled on a specific case regarding Inheritance. He had to deal with the issues in a family attempting to figure out the inheritance after death. Umar RA solved it by decreasing the proportions of each person gets so that everyone gets something from the estate. This just like the case is a specific case, not a general case. We only look at it when the situation itself arises, not as a general rule.
Setting a minimum age has more to do with setting something artbitary rather than protecting anyone. The requirements for marriage are Puberty and financial maturity, which can be ruled by a judge and eliminates child marriage at large. It is better if these are the laws set, and then have a just judge rule on them.
