Taliban continue ban on womens education

[Omar del Sur]

x.com

x.com

Mawlana Abdul Ali Dewbandi argues that even teaching women how to read and write at home is frowned upon.

I read about this and I believe he was following the Hanafi madhhab and its use of opinion. Because in the Hanafi madhhab, there is this big tendency where they will use their own reasoning instead of just strictly following the Quran and hadith. This is one of the distinctive features of their maddhab and early scholars used to criticize Abu Hanifa about this aspect of his.

From what I understand, their whole reasoning on this issue is coming from that Hanafi approach of using one's own reasoning. I don't believe there's any clear evidence for this from Quran or Sunnah. but there's plenty of evidence as to why women should be able to learn.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Also, Taliban have confirmed they believe in a fatwa by a scholar who argues women reading and writing is haram even in their own homes.

audubillah. Allah is who decides what is halal and haram.

a lot of the salaf used to warn against Abu Hanifa and I am believing they may have been right. a lot of modern salafis kind of... gloss over that... but it's a reality- they did used to warn about Abu Hanifa and how he would put excessive emphasis on his own opinion vs the hadith.

Allah didn't make it haram for a woman to read so none of us created beings can make it haram. Proper authorities can prevent zina and enforce hijab... but to prevent women from reading?? audubillah, I hope I never cave an inch when it comes to defending actual Islamic rulings, such as the law dealing with apostasy. but why on earth should Muslims be having to defend their reputation in a situation like this where it isn't even actually something from Islam... yet kaffirs such as zionists are surely going to take this kind of thing and use it as propaganda.... the US asked Mullah Omar to hand over osama without giving proper evidence... and the Afghans resisted and said this was to uphold the prestige of Islam.... but just as that was to uphold the prestige of Islam, they need to distance themselves from these wrong fataawa also in order to defend the prestige of Islam

 

[ina-cilmi]

OP is ajnabi, think he's albanian

an albanian on somalispot is crazy, how do these folk even find this forum

 

[Mudug_gyal]

This is what someone mentioned in the comments, thoughts?

View attachment 331989
View attachment 331990

LOL.

 

[Mudug_gyal]

@DojaKhat @Basra hala washo

 

[repo]

No one but the ignorant and kuffar are upset about this. You rely on constant propaganda.

You are so deranged that you are upset war, drugs, murder, occupation, bacha bazi and corruption was replaced with a functional state that is guided by Islam.

Girls get a religious education what you are mad about is their lack of access to gender studies, liberalism, financial independence, and onlyfans.

The agenda targetting Muslim women was exposed long ago to most Muslims by now. If you are mad about it, it is a good thing.

You hate science and you are from Mogadishu.

 

[Do]

No one but the ignorant and kuffar are upset about this. You rely on constant propaganda.

You are so deranged that you are upset war, drugs, murder, occupation, bacha bazi and corruption was replaced with a functional state that is guided by Islam.

Girls get a religious education what you are mad about is their lack of access to gender studies, liberalism, financial independence, and onlyfans.

The agenda targetting Muslim women was exposed long ago to most Muslims by now. If you are mad about it, it is a good thing.

This correlation between women gaining access to secular education and the supposed subsequent uptick of internet prostitution via OnlyFans is what we call slippery slope fallacy.

But you wouldn't have picked up on that since you'd rather blindly copy-and-paste your opinions from that Iranian fat f*ck, Danny.

What's the difference between this article and the rubbish you're spewing here, besides the superior eloquence of Haqiqatjou compared to you?

https://muslimskeptic.com/2021/04/20/the-perils-of-educating-our-daughters/

 

[Do]

@Angelina
@Mudug_gyal

Thought you might enjoy this tidbit of DH slander that popped up on my Twitter feed the other day.

x.com

x.com

 

[Angelina]

audubillah. Allah is who decides what is halal and haram.

a lot of the salaf used to warn against Abu Hanifa and I am believing they may have been right. a lot of modern salafis kind of... gloss over that... but it's a reality- they did used to warn about Abu Hanifa and how he would put excessive emphasis on his own opinion vs the hadith.

Allah didn't make it haram for a woman to read so none of us created beings can make it haram. Proper authorities can prevent zina and enforce hijab... but to prevent women from reading?? audubillah, I hope I never cave an inch when it comes to defending actual Islamic rulings, such as the law dealing with apostasy. but why on earth should Muslims be having to defend their reputation in a situation like this where it isn't even actually something from Islam... yet kaffirs such as zionists are surely going to take this kind of thing and use it as propaganda.... the US asked Mullah Omar to hand over osama without giving proper evidence... and the Afghans resisted and said this was to uphold the prestige of Islam.... but just as that was to uphold the prestige of Islam, they need to distance themselves from these wrong fataawa also in order to defend the prestige of Islam

This is NOT the view of Imam Hanifa but simply a scholar who follows his madhab.

This is not a Hanafi position or the position of any Madhab. Abu Hanifa believed women can be judges, believed that they can organize their own marriages without a Wali ect. Believed they can put Nikkah Al Tawfid in their marriage contract ect. Abu Hanafi himself had female teachers who were scholars themselves.

As for scholars using opinions, you find that in every madhab even scholars using the Quran and Sunnah can end up using their own reasoning since humans can misinterpret and their interpretation is due to their own limited rationale. Shafi, while a literalist compared to Abu Hanifa believed that a man can marry his own bastard daughter. Why? Because he was overly literal which is another issue and even then you can fall into being a victim of your own ‘ideas’ . We also have the issue of him believing forced marriages are halal for the case of virgins even though we have Hadiths saying the opposite. Why? Probably because he too was influenced by the culture of the time and that’s what’s difficult about being a Muslim women. We have far too many scholarly takes influenced by 10th century cultural views and the world in 10th century Arabia was incredibly misogynistic.

Islamic scholarship is vast and you find all sorts of opinions. You have Maliki scholars of the past who believed that one doesn’t have to lower their gaze when it comes to black women since they’re ‘ugly’. That obviously isn’t the view of Imam Malik but his later followers.

I’m telling you, once you start reading fiqh views you’d be baffled and fascinated and now you have these Muslim incels on twitter digging up all of these crazy views and if you disagree they’ll hit you up with the fact that it’s a ‘scholarly’ view.

 

[Omar del Sur]

This is NOT the view of Imam Hanifa but simply a scholar who follows his madhab.

This is not a Hanafi position or the position of any Madhab.

Islamic scholarship is vast and you find all sorts of opinions. You have Maliki scholars of the past who believed that one doesn’t have to lower their gaze when it comes to black women since they’re ‘ugly’. That obviously isn’t the view of Imam Malik but his later followers.

I’m telling you, once you start reading fiqh views you’d be baffled and fascinated and now you have these Muslim incels on twitter digging up all of these crazy views and if you disagree they’ll hit you up with the fact that it’s a ‘scholarly’ view.

let me show what I was talking about.

so even this user who is South Asian- even he think this has something to do with the Deobandi school.

ok so here we have pashtun athari explaining what the person said.

so we can see from pashtun athari's explanation- the person is using sort of his own reasoning. that is why I bring the Hanafi madhhab into this. because the Hanafis are known to put overemphasis on their own reasoning rather than following the evidences strictly. even the very early scholars used to criticize Abu Hanifa over this, saying that he put his own reasoning/opinion over the hadith.

I am not saying that this is the view of Abu Hanifa but that the person comes to this conclusion based on a mistaken approach that has to do with the Hanafi approach.

 

[Angelina]

let me show what I was talking about.

View attachment 332006

so even this user who is South Asian- even he think this has something to do with the Deobandi school.

View attachment 332007

ok so here we have pashtun athari explaining what the person said.

so we can see from pashtun athari's explanation- the person is using sort of his own reasoning. that is why I bring the Hanafi madhhab into this. because the Hanafis are known to put overemphasis on their own reasoning rather than following the evidences strictly. even the very early scholars used to criticize Abu Hanifa over this, saying that he put his own reasoning/opinion over the hadith.

I am not saying that this is the view of Abu Hanifa but that the person comes to this conclusion based on a mistaken approach that has to do with the Hanafi approach.

They’re using the concept of women being fitnah. You find that idea being used to prevent women from being able to do all sorts of things when you look at Islamic history. It’s completely at odds with the way the Salaf lived. If women were meant to be uneducated shut ins, why do we have vast literature of female Sahabas being warriors, asking the Prophet s.a.w questions, Omar s.a.w employing a woman as the controller of the markers in Mecca and Madina?

Even in Saudi history who many of whom were Salafi, some scholars protested the opening of female schools despite Saudi during at that time being completely segregated and the girls wouldn’t have seen any males.

What proof did they have that’s is haram for girls to go to school?

I’ve come to the conclusion that when it comes to Islamic history with regards to women, no real proof is ever needed when it comes to banning anything with regards to women. Muslim women unfortunately don’t have any rights since rights cannot be contested and that’s what we need to acknowledge as an Ummah. We’re at the whims and mercy of man. They can ban us from masjid, ban us from learning, ban us from working which will result in women losing other rights like being cheated out of inheritance, having the rights to leave an abusive marriage since you find funds and education to do that and the list continues.

In an age in which women are now educated and can read, this attitude amongst the learned men will back fire.

 

[Omar del Sur]

They’re using the concept of women being fitnah. You find that idea being used to prevent women from being able to do all sorts of things when you look at Islamic history.

Even in Saudi history, some scholars protested the opening of female schools despite Saudi during that time being completely segregated and the girls wouldn’t have seen any males.

What proof did they have that’s is haram for girls to go to school?

I’ve come to the conclusion that when it comes to Islamic history with regards to women, no real proof is ever needed when it comes to banning anything with regards to women.

In an age in which women are now educated and can read, this attitude amongst the learned men will back fire.

for men, women are the biggest fitna after the dajjal. we can't go after actual Islamic concepts.

 

[Angelina]

for men, women are the biggest fitna after the dajjal. we can't go after actual Islamic concepts.

You can’t use the idea of fitnah to ban women’s rights. If you go down that slope the end results is to strip them of all their rights and lock them in their homes with 0 rights which is their mindset and is what has happened in Islamic history in some regions.

As for women being fitnah, have any of these men thought that maybe the fitnah being spoken about is how they treat women? Maybe their fitnah is the way they mistreat women? Maybe that’s their test?

Also, If they truly believed women are fitnah due to their sexual allure why are they okay with slave women waking around topless who are allowed to touch them and they can touch them? So you’re telling me, in an Islamic society that was heavily a slave society with millions of slave women walking around half naked, women are a fitnah for their beauty?

None of them can define what makes a woman fitnah. Is it her beauty or her social status? Is a free hijabi with all her body covered more of a fitnah than a beautiful slave woman who is half naked and her hair out? That was a normal sight in a traditional Muslim society. So in what capacity am I, a covered woman ‘fitnah’?

 

[Omar del Sur]

You can’t use the idea of fitnah to ban women’s rights.

I haven't talked about rights, whether banning them or otherwise. I only mentioned that women are a fitna for men. the concept that women are a great fitna for men is proven by an inquestionably authentic hadith that is reported by both Bukhari and Muslim

Usamah ibn Zayd reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “I have not left a trial after me more harmful to men than women.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 5096, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2740

Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim

 

[Omar del Sur]

also as far as the women being fitna to men concept.... if I understand correctly, the Hanafi view does prohibit women from going to masajid. that is a real view of their madhhab. but... I've read an explanation from the hanafi viewpoint as to why they believe that and they are worried about women mixing with men.... so I would not say that this is exactly based on the concept that women along with dajjal are a great fitna for men but more that it is about concern about mixing

 

[Angelina]

I haven't talked about rights, whether banning them or otherwise. I only mentioned that women are a fitna for men. the concept that women are a great fitna for men is proven by an inquestionably authentic hadith that is reported by both Bukhari and Muslim

Usamah ibn Zayd reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “I have not left a trial after me more harmful to men than women.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 5096, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2740

Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim

I’ve never questioned that Hadith. But why is it the understanding is that women are fitnah due to their sexual allure rather than women being a test for men due to the way they treat them? These are my questions:

1. Also, If they truly believed women are fitnah due to their sexual allure why are they okay with slave women waking around topless who are allowed to touch them and they can touch them? So you’re telling me, in an Islamic society that was heavily a slave society with millions of slave women walking around half naked, women are a fitnah for their beauty?

2. None of them can define what makes a woman fitnah. Is it her beauty or her social status? Is a free hijabi with all her body covered more of a fitnah than a beautiful slave woman who is half naked and her hair out? That was a normal sight in a traditional Muslim society. So in what capacity am I, a covered woman ‘fitnah’?

My question is, am I a woman fitnah for being biologically a women or for being a free women? What’s the interpretation here?

This what I mean when I say hijab for some and not for all opens a can of worms and will make anyone with common sense have questions.

 

[Omar del Sur]

I’ve never questioned that Hadith. But why is it the understanding is that women are fitnah due to their sexual allure rather than women being a test for men due to the way they treat them? These are my questions:

1. Also, If they truly believed women are fitnah due to their sexual allure why are they okay with slave women waking around topless who are allowed to touch them and they can touch them? So you’re telling me, in an Islamic society that was heavily a slave society with millions of slave women walking around half naked, women are a fitnah for their beauty?

2. None of them can define what makes a woman fitnah. Is it her beauty or her social status? Is a free hijabi with all her body covered more of a fitnah than a beautiful slave woman who is half naked and her hair out? That was a normal sight in a traditional Muslim society. So in what capacity am I, a covered woman ‘fitnah’?

My question is, am I a woman fitnah for being biologically a women or for being a free women? What’s the interpretation here?

This what I mean when I say hijab for some and not for all opens a can of worms and will make anyone with common sense have questions.

I will look up a sharh insha'Allah, I don't want to try to interpret the hadith just based on my own thoughts

 

[Angelina]

also as far as the women being fitna to men concept.... if I understand correctly, the Hanafi view does prohibit women from going to masajid. that is a real view of their madhhab. but... I've read an explanation from the hanafi viewpoint as to why they believe that and they are worried about women mixing with men.... so I would not say that this is exactly based on the concept that women along with dajjal are a great fitna for men but more that it is about concern about mixing

That’s baseless. Women in the past during the time of the Prophet s.a.w used to pray in one big room and now you have segregated masjids.

If women can’t even go to the masjid which is indeed segregated than you even extend it to women even going outside for fresh air as men might see them.

If men seeing women is so haram despite free women often wearing full hijab and covering one’s face in a Muslim society why is it okay for them to look at and mix with half naked slave women?

In order for women to listen to this and believe this, they need to illiterate and unable to think critically. Now it makes complete sense why many of these men don’t want women to learn. Anyone with any intellectual capabilities will question this.

 

[Omar del Sur]

1. Also, If they truly believed women are fitnah due to their sexual allure why are they okay with slave women waking around topless who are allowed to touch them and they can touch them?

I think I've posted before a quotation from Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah that was directly opposed to that kind of thing. There maybe were some scholars who history who approved of it but it wasn't unanymous, I'm not sure where the majority lied but I don't think that's the correct viewpoint or understanding of the shariah

 

[Omar del Sur]

That’s baseless. Women in the past during the time of the Prophet s.a.w used to pray in one big room and now you have segregated masjids.

I'm not a Hanafi, I don't follow their school. I don't really have a strong opinion either way. The Salafis oppose the Hanafis on this and I've looked it at it from both sides and it gets very complicated in terms of their evidences. But I think definitely there's nothing haram about women going to the masjid.