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

[anonimo]

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?

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.

 

[Hamzza]

Spoiler

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

Read this:


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.

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.

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.

 

[Angelina]

Got it walaal.

You are now appealing to my conscience and own reasoning, moving the goal posts are we?

Last reply, Croissants, Cannot Shokolaato and my Sariir are calling me.

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!

 

[Angelina]

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.

Yh, this discussion ends right here. I’m not interested in talking to someone who views women as objects. You sound unhinged.

 

[Thegoodshepherd]

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.

 

[anonimo]

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?

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.

 

[anonimo]

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.

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]

Yh, this discussion ends right here. I’m not interested in talking to someone who views women as objects. You sound unhinged.

Feminism is not compatible with Islam

 

[Username]

Not really. What is considered Marital rape isn’t even criminalized in many countries.

I usually don’t quote Wikipedia as it’s unreliable but this picture below is quite informative:

View attachment 245374

What the hell is the difference between "marital rape" and "forced marital sex" in that picture?

 

[Angelina]

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.

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.

 

[Angelina]

Feminism is not compatible with Islam

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.

 

[anonimo]

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.

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!

 

[Angelina]

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.

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.

 

[Angelina]

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!

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.

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.

 

[anonimo]

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.

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.

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/why-we-need-a-secular-constitution.32049/

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

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.

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
..

The way you personalise shit and make unwarranted accusations is Qaac.

Mac Salama!

 

[Username]

Somalia can not be a caliphate as no somali can be a caliph, the caliph has to be from Banu quraysh and no somali can truly prove to be descendant of them, doesn't matter if a somali has more merit than a qurayshi contender. Many hadith show this like:

"This matter (of the caliphate) will remain with the Quraish, and none will rebel against them, but Allah will throw him down on his face as long as they stick to the rules and regulations of the religion (Islam).'" (Abu Muslim, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 253

"This matter will remain in Quraysh, so long as two of them remain" (Muslim, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 254)

Weird, I thought in Islam, unlike Judaism, everyone was equal, but I guess the Quraish clan are automatically better than Somalis...

 

[Nikka]

Wudufek I went to sleep and woke up but this thread is till going on

 

[HMuuse]

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?

 

[HMuuse]

is this your actual opinion?

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]

You are arguing aimlessly.

welcome to @Angelina 101.