Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Jolthig]

Because they both present false interpretations of Islam and commit numerous crimes against humanity that is prohibited by the Holy quran and sunnah. The saudis kill women and children in Yemen, and Pakistan persecutes ahmadi muslims.

They also both have a monopoly on the Ummah.

False how?

The modern-day Salafist interpretation of Islam is wrong, and they way Saudi Arabia Carrie's out Sharia is wrong with some fatwas not even being true fatwas as they are neither rooted in the Quran or Sunnah. Their ulama are flawed.

[Al Mumtahanah]

False how?

The modern-day Salafist interpretation of Islam is wrong, and they way Saudi Arabia Carrie's out Sharia is wrong with some fatwas not even being true fatwas as they are neither rooted in the Quran or Sunnah. Their ulama are flawed.

I might disagree with the Athari aqidah but it's still an orthodox aqidah. I also disagree with some of their fatawa but their school is legitimate, you can't takfir someone just because of difference in theology or fiqh.

You haven't explained your insinuation that Maturidi aqidah is false. I definately disagree with it as well but it is quite out of the question to suggest Maturidis are munafiqun.

[Jolthig]

The modern-day Salafist interpretation of Islam is wrong, and they way Saudi Arabia Carrie's out Sharia is wrong with some fatwas not even being true fatwas as they are neither rooted in the Quran or Sunnah. Their ulama are flawed.

I might disagree with the Athari aqidah but it's still an orthodox aqidah. I also disagree with some of their fatawa but their school is legitimate, you can't takfir someone just because of difference in theology or fiqh.

You haven't explained your insinuation that Maturidi aqidah is false. I definately disagree with it as well but it is quite out of the question to suggest Maturidis are munafiqun.

The school that the Saudi schools are rooted from which happens to be Hanafi is in itself not, bad, but it's the way they carry out Shariah. Although, admittingly, Saudi Arabia has made some advances, letting women drive again.

I haven't takfired anyone, but simply disagreeing with their view on fiqh, or at least how they carry it out.

[Al Mumtahanah]

I might disagree with the Athari aqidah but it's still an orthodox aqidah. I also disagree with some of their fatawa but their school is legitimate, you can't takfir someone just because of difference in theology or fiqh.

You haven't explained your insinuation that Maturidi aqidah is false. I definately disagree with it as well but it is quite out of the question to suggest Maturidis are munafiqun.

The school that the Saudi schools are rooted from which happens to be Hanafi is in itself not, bad, but it's the way they carry out Shariah. Although, admittingly, Saudi Arabia has made some advances, letting women drive again.

I haven't takfired anyone, but simply disagreeing with their view on fiqh, or at least how they carry it out.

Saudi Arabia is Hanbali, not Hanafi. The question about Maturidi was referring to Pakistan.

Saying they follow a false religion and are the enemy of the Ummah...I am presuming you mean our Ummah, not yours...sounds like takfir.

[Al Mumtahanah]

I might disagree with the Athari aqidah but it's still an orthodox aqidah. I also disagree with some of their fatawa but their school is legitimate, you can't takfir someone just because of difference in theology or fiqh.

You haven't explained your insinuation that Maturidi aqidah is false. I definately disagree with it as well but it is quite out of the question to suggest Maturidis are munafiqun.

The school that the Saudi schools are rooted from which happens to be Hanafi is in itself not, bad, but it's the way they carry out Shariah. Although, admittingly, Saudi Arabia has made some advances, letting women drive again.

I haven't takfired anyone, but simply disagreeing with their view on fiqh, or at least how they carry it out.

Saudi Arabia is Hanbali, not Hanafi. The question about Maturidi was referring to Pakistan.

Saying they follow a false religion and are the enemy of the Ummah...I am presuming you mean our Ummah, not yours...sounds like takfir.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Letting women drive was a reasonable quibble. Women cannot go out without being accompanied by their husband or a male member of the family, so they ruled women should not be allowed to drive as it would not be conducive to this. They changed that but still require accompaniment to drive. Reasonabl quibble. It seems like a weird criticism om your part.

[Jolthig]

The school that the Saudi schools are rooted from which happens to be Hanafi is in itself not, bad, but it's the way they carry out Shariah. Although, admittingly, Saudi Arabia has made some advances, letting women drive again.

I haven't takfired anyone, but simply disagreeing with their view on fiqh, or at least how they carry it out.

Saudi Arabia is Hanbali, not Hanafi. The question about Maturidi was referring to Pakistan.

Saying they follow a false religion and are the enemy of the Ummah...I am presuming you mean our Ummah, not yours...sounds like takfir.

They are muslim by name.

I do stand corrected though on what schools they follow.

[Jolthig]

Letting women drive was a reasonable quibble. Women cannot go out without being accompanied by their husband or a male member of the family, so they ruled women should not be allowed to drive as it would not be conducive to this. They changed that but still require accompaniment to drive. Reasonabl quibble. It seems like a weird criticism om your part.

Not really as there is nothing wrong with women driving cars.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Letting women drive was a reasonable quibble. Women cannot go out without being accompanied by their husband or a male member of the family, so they ruled women should not be allowed to drive as it would not be conducive to this. They changed that but still require accompaniment to drive. Reasonabl quibble. It seems like a weird criticism om your part.

Not really as there is nothing wrong with women driving cars.

Are you a scholar of Habali fiqh?

[Jolthig]

Not really as there is nothing wrong with women driving cars.

Are you a scholar of Habali fiqh?

I never said that. I said there is nothing wrong with women driving cars.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Are you a scholar of Habali fiqh?

I never said that. I said there is nothing wrong with women driving cars.

Then your fatwa carries no weight here.

[Jolthig]

I never said that. I said there is nothing wrong with women driving cars.

Then your fatwa carries no weight here.

Well, I never issued any fatwas either. I may not be an alim, but I find it absurd that women shouldn't drive.

[Kowani]

I never said that. I said there is nothing wrong with women driving cars.

Then your fatwa carries no weight here.

Yeah, that’s not how NSG works.

[Jolthig]

Then your fatwa carries no weight here.

Yeah, that’s not how NSG works.

Although authority is a big thing in Islamic scholarship, appeal to authority is definitely a big fallacy on his part.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Then your fatwa carries no weight here.

Yeah, that’s not how NSG works.

Here means in the case of a Hanbali country

[Kowani]

Yeah, that’s not how NSG works.

Although authority is a big thing in Islamic scholarship, appeal to authority is definitely a big fallacy on his part.

I see.

[Jolthig]

Yeah, that’s not how NSG works.

Here means in the case of a Hanbali country

That still doesn't make your daleel valid.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Yeah, that’s not how NSG works.

Although authority is a big thing in Islamic scholarship, appeal to authority is definitely a big fallacy on his part.

I am Ashari, so I do not see appeal to authority as a fallacy when it comes to fiqh, law wouls be impossible without legal authorities having the final say.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Here means in the case of a Hanbali country

That still doesn't make your daleel valid.

I am not Hanbali, their criteria of what is daleel are based on their particular school of scholarship.

[Jolthig]

Although authority is a big thing in Islamic scholarship, appeal to authority is definitely a big fallacy on his part.

I am Ashari, so I do not see appeal to authority as a fallacy when it comes to fiqh, law wouls be impossible without legal authorities having the final say.

Yes, I agree laws would have impossible without authorities having a final say. I also study fiqh at times. Mostly in the areas of Imam Shafi'i and scholar, Jonathan Brown. But from my investigations so far, there is no daleel that says women shouldn't drive cars.

[Jolthig]

That still doesn't make your daleel valid.

I am not Hanbali, their criteria of what is daleel are based on their particular school of scholarship.

Sure.

[Al Mumtahanah]

I am Ashari, so I do not see appeal to authority as a fallacy when it comes to fiqh, law wouls be impossible without legal authorities having the final say.

Yes, I agree laws would have impossible without authorities having a final say. I also study fiqh at times. Mostly in the areas of Imam Shafi'i and scholar, Jonathan Brown. But from my investigations so far, there is no daleel that says women shouldn't drive cars.

Studying a single Shafi'i scholar does not make you an authority on Hanbali fiqh and it is a moot point anyway since like you said they have ruled it is halal for women to drive.

[Jolthig]

Yes, I agree laws would have impossible without authorities having a final say. I also study fiqh at times. Mostly in the areas of Imam Shafi'i and scholar, Jonathan Brown. But from my investigations so far, there is no daleel that says women shouldn't drive cars.

Studying a single Shafi'i scholar does not make you an authority on Hanbali fiqh and it is a moot point anyway since like you said they have ruled it is halal for women to drive.

Again, I never said I was a scholar or authority, but I was simply saying it was absurd to not allow women to drive no matter what so called daleel they have. Given that you claim you are Asharite, and given that you claim to study the Hanbali fiqh, I would expect you to provide me with daleel about why the Hanbalis have valid grounds to not allow women to drive, but instead, I'm simply told they're authorities and they know better than me without answering why women shouldn't be allowed to drive. While you may be knowledgable in fiqh, your arguments so far haven't really demonstrated anything other than "they know better than me". That's how weak the appeal to authority argument on part is right now.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Studying a single Shafi'i scholar does not make you an authority on Hanbali fiqh and it is a moot point anyway since like you said they have ruled it is halal for women to drive.

Again, I never said I was a scholar or authority, but I was simply saying it was absurd to not allow women to drive no matter what so called daleel they have. Given that you claim you are Asharite, and given that you claim to study the Hanbali fiqh, I would expect you to provide me with daleel about why the Hanbalis have valid grounds to not allow women to drive, but instead, I'm simply told they're authorities and they know better than me without answering why women shouldn't be allowed to drive. While you may be knowledgable in fiqh, your arguments so far haven't really demonstrated anything other than "they know better than me". That's how weak the appeal to authority argument on part is right now.

When it comes to Hanbali fiqh they obviously would know better. If I cared to contest something they said I would research the fatwa in question and find if the way they went about it was consistent with their school, I would not just say it is absurd because that is not a defined basis for objecting to a fatwa except in Hanafi fiqh.

[Jolthig]

Again, I never said I was a scholar or authority, but I was simply saying it was absurd to not allow women to drive no matter what so called daleel they have. Given that you claim you are Asharite, and given that you claim to study the Hanbali fiqh, I would expect you to provide me with daleel about why the Hanbalis have valid grounds to not allow women to drive, but instead, I'm simply told they're authorities and they know better than me without answering why women shouldn't be allowed to drive. While you may be knowledgable in fiqh, your arguments so far haven't really demonstrated anything other than "they know better than me". That's how weak the appeal to authority argument on part is right now.

When it comes to Hanbali fiqh they obviously would know better. If I cared to contest something they said I would research the fatwa in question and find if the way they went about it was consistent with their school, I would not just say it is absurd because that is not a defined basis for objecting to a fatwa except in Hanafi fiqh.

That still doesn't answer my question for why the Saudis say women shouldn't be allowed to drive. Islam does allow us to ask scholars whatever school they are questions as even the companions asked others questions if their hadith are authentic. Some companions dismissed some hadiths by others as not authentic in terms of dirayat:

Maḥmūd bin Ar-Rabī‘ narrates that I heard from ‘Itbān bin Mālik that the Prophet of Allāh said, Allāh the Exalted has prohibited the fire of hell upon all those who in full sincerity and to seek the pleasure of God alone, declare that there is none worthy of worship except Allāh. Maḥmūdra added, I told the above narration to some people in a gathering where Abū Ayyūbra was also present. Abū Ayyūbra denounced the narration and said, “By God, I cannot at all presume that the Holy Prophetsa might have said so.”

Can we not do the same for fatwas and scholar's ijtihads?