Afghan Conflict: Russian Political Leader Meets With Massoud

[Chess Reloaded]

French colonialst propaganda from their occupation of North Africa urging Muslim women to stop covering their faces
https://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/def ... lonial.jpg

It was a very brutal process what the French did there

Wow, a poster.

Such brutality.

Much oppression.

I mean they slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians

[Insaanistan]

French colonialst propaganda from their occupation of North Africa urging Muslim women to stop covering their faces
https://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/def ... lonial.jpg

It was a very brutal process what the French did there

Wow, a poster.

Such brutality.

Much oppression.

Uhhhhh…
French colonization and colonial of Algeria and attempts to quell Algeria’s attempts at independence were VERY brutal.

[Fahran]

That concealing the face is an obligation is a wholly legitimate position, regardless of whether or not it is a minority position currently.

And is administering lashes to women who choose not to abide by it just? The issue with how the Taliban and many other Islamists who impose the burqa/niqab on women is that this is seldom the only onerous interpretation they elect to pursue. In their desire to present themselves as pious, they're going to put many families, especially those who do not have sons, in a difficult position. There's no mercy or gentleness in these policies.

What I have stated is true about the four imams. In fact Imam Ahmed went further and said the hands and feet must also be covered although Abu Hanifa held that they were not awrah.

Abu Hanifa did not believe the veiling the face was an obligation, at least as far as I'm aware. He believed that the hands and face could be seen so long as this was not done lustfully. I believe my article even quotes some of his disciples and adherents on the matter. Not to mention some among the Sahabah stated that even bracelets and kohl could be used as adornment without violating sharia.

The article you cite by Qaradawi (a notorious slimeball who says KFC is halal because America is a Christian country so it's considered Ahlul Kitab, he praised the Taliban when they came to power, then urged Muslims to fight the Taliban when America invaded, then praised the Taliban when they defeated America) is about different scholars within the schools, I'm citing their namesakes specifically. What you're doing is like taking Albani saying covering the face is not obligatory and using that to prove that's not a predominant position among Salafis.

He's actually right. KFC, broadly speaking, is halal/kosher. All that is lacking is a certification, but the quality of the poultry, the pieces used, and the method of preparation do not contradict any but the most rigid and strict interpretations of sharia and halakha. In fact, most meat products sold in the US are probably technically halal/kosher with some notable exceptions - such as pork, bacon, etc. But my article was not about the man, who is well-reputed enough as a scholar despite your objections to him. It was about the mainline views of the various schools of jurisprudence and of the scholars you mentioned in particular.

Now as for the position it is not an obligation to cover the face, this has always been common. It may have predominated sometimes.

It seems to have almost always predominated - as it predominates today, even among fervent revivalists.

But it was always considered preferable to cover the face. And the position it was required was always considered valid if disputed. I myself do not have the expertise necessary to give a definite answer on which is the more correct opinion but I do regard both as having weight

So you would concede that it is the less commonly accepted position all the same?

[Fahran]

Uhhhhh…
French colonization and colonial of Algeria and attempts to quell Algeria’s attempts at independence were VERY brutal.

Really, everything relating to Algeria in the early modern period has been brutal.

[South Americanastan]

Wow, a poster.

Such brutality.

Much oppression.

Uhhhhh…
French colonization and colonial of Algeria and attempts to quell Algeria’s attempts at independence were VERY brutal.

It's Africa, that's par for the course.

[Fahran]

French colonialst propaganda from their occupation of North Africa urging Muslim women to stop covering their faces
https://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/def ... lonial.jpg

It was a very brutal process what the French did there

Just as it's been a very brutal process what the Taliban and Pakistanis are doing in their corners of the world.

[Chess Reloaded]

French colonialst propaganda from their occupation of North Africa urging Muslim women to stop covering their faces
https://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/def ... lonial.jpg

It was a very brutal process what the French did there

Just as it's been a very brutal process what the Taliban and Pakistanis are doing in their corners of the world.

Which is nothing compared to your culturally refined paragon, Ghani

[Chess Reloaded]

That concealing the face is an obligation is a wholly legitimate position, regardless of whether or not it is a minority position currently.

And is administering lashes to women who choose not to abide by it just? The issue with how the Taliban and many other Islamists who impose the burqa/niqab on women is that this is seldom the only onerous interpretation they elect to pursue. In their desire to present themselves as pious, they're going to put many families, especially those who do not have sons, in a difficult position. There's no mercy or gentleness in these policies.

What I have stated is true about the four imams. In fact Imam Ahmed went further and said the hands and feet must also be covered although Abu Hanifa held that they were not awrah.

Abu Hanifa did not believe the veiling the face was an obligation, at least as far as I'm aware. He believed that the hands and face could be seen so long as this was not done lustfully. I believe my article even quotes some of his disciples and adherents on the matter. Not to mention some among the Sahabah stated that even bracelets and kohl could be used as adornment without violating sharia.

The article you cite by Qaradawi (a notorious slimeball who says KFC is halal because America is a Christian country so it's considered Ahlul Kitab, he praised the Taliban when they came to power, then urged Muslims to fight the Taliban when America invaded, then praised the Taliban when they defeated America) is about different scholars within the schools, I'm citing their namesakes specifically. What you're doing is like taking Albani saying covering the face is not obligatory and using that to prove that's not a predominant position among Salafis.

He's actually right. KFC, broadly speaking, is halal/kosher. All that is lacking is a certification, but the quality of the poultry, the pieces used, and the method of preparation do not contradict any but the most rigid and strict interpretations of sharia and halakha. In fact, most meat products sold in the US are probably technically halal/kosher with some notable exceptions - such as pork, bacon, etc. But my article was not about the man, who is well-reputed enough as a scholar despite your objections to him. It was about the mainline views of the various schools of jurisprudence and of the scholars you mentioned in particular.

Now as for the position it is not an obligation to cover the face, this has always been common. It may have predominated sometimes.

It seems to have almost always predominated - as it predominates today, even among fervent revivalists.

But it was always considered preferable to cover the face. And the position it was required was always considered valid if disputed. I myself do not have the expertise necessary to give a definite answer on which is the more correct opinion but I do regard both as having weight

So you would concede that it is the less commonly accepted position all the same?

Abu Hanifa like Imam Malik didn't consider the face awrah, no. He said it must be covered if there is fear of fitna, so Islamically probably between puberty and menopause

You shouldn't speak on Dhabihah slaughter. Or kosher slaughter. Lol

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Just as it's been a very brutal process what the Taliban and Pakistanis are doing in their corners of the world.

Which is nothing compared to your culturally refined paragon, Ghani

N O B O D Y L I K E S H I M.

[Fahran]

Abu Hanifa like Imam Malik didn't consider the face awrah, no. He said it must be covered if there is fear of fitna, so Islamically probably between puberty and menopause

And what produces fitna? Judging by some men's offenses, not even children and grandmothers are safe from vile lusts.

You shouldn't speak on Dhabihah slaughter. Or kosher slaughter. Lol

So long as eggs and bacon grease are not used and you're not Charedi or Chassidic, KFC definitely is within the potential purview of kosher foods. And, as I pointed out, it's probably halal for most Muslims too. A truly baffling amount of meat sold in supermarkets in the US is kosher-certified. I don't imagine chicken from a popular restaurant chain is the exception.

It's still gross though. Too greasy.

[Fahran]

Which is nothing compared to your culturally refined paragon, Ghani

I mean... he hasn't beheaded or stoned anyone yet to my knowledge. The main issue is that he's corrupt and a foreign puppet, not that he's a notorious brute.

[Chess Reloaded]

Abu Hanifa like Imam Malik didn't consider the face awrah, no. He said it must be covered if there is fear of fitna, so Islamically probably between puberty and menopause

And what produces fitna? Judging by some men's offenses, not even children and grandmothers are safe from vile lusts.

You shouldn't speak on Dhabihah slaughter. Or kosher slaughter. Lol

So long as eggs and bacon grease are not used and you're not Charedi or Chassidic, KFC definitely is within the potential purview of kosher foods. And, as I pointed out, it's probably halal for most Muslims too. A truly baffling amount of meat sold in supermarkets in the US is kosher-certified. I don't imagine chicken from a popular restaurant chain is the exception.

It's still gross though. Too greasy.

Please. Stop. You don't know anything about fiqh or the definition of fitna from scholars. You're off the map. It's embarrassing. Just accept that covering the face is mandatory in the opinion of many distinguished scholars and you disagree with that and oppose it for your own ideological reasons, whatever they may be

Dhabihah slaughter requires cutting the animal's throat toward the qibla while pronouncing the Basmala and out of view of other animals. I'm not even going to get into Kosher rules because you aren't just speaking ignorance, you are proliferating it in a the cocksure style of an expert. Your posts are like balloons, they are empty of content, just a bunch of jargon and nonsense you try to pass off by acting confident about it. They can be popped with just a pinprick of truth. The beginning of wisdom is to admit you don't know what you don't.

https://jewishlouisville.org/kfc-relaun ... this-time/

[The Two Jerseys]

Wow, a poster.

Such brutality.

Much oppression.

I mean they slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians

But not for trivial shit like wearing a face covering.

[Chess Reloaded]

Which is nothing compared to your culturally refined paragon, Ghani

N O B O D Y L I K E S H I M.

Brutality is a sliding scale. Every government uses some because all government depends on forcing everyone to obey it. The question is the degree of brutality. The Taliban is definitely much more brutal than Sweden, they publicly beat people and smash instruments. They are less brutal than Ghani or the French in Algeria. Whether or not Swedish style could even work in Afghanistan is a solid question.

[Diarcesia]

N O B O D Y L I K E S H I M.

Brutality is a sliding scale. Every government uses some because all government depends on forcing everyone to obey it. The question is the degree of brutality. The Taliban is definitely much more brutal than Sweden, they publicly beat people and smash instruments. They are less brutal than Ghani or the French in Algeria. Whether or not Swedish style could even work in Afghanistan is a solid question.

Explain.

[Chess Reloaded]

I mean they slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians

But not for trivial shit like wearing a face covering.

The Taliban don't kill people for not wearing a face veil contrary to Fox News. Now there are probably men who will do that in Afghanistan, a very depressing conception of honor, but it's not a policy of the Taliban.

[Chess Reloaded]

Brutality is a sliding scale. Every government uses some because all government depends on forcing everyone to obey it. The question is the degree of brutality. The Taliban is definitely much more brutal than Sweden, they publicly beat people and smash instruments. They are less brutal than Ghani or the French in Algeria. Whether or not Swedish style could even work in Afghanistan is a solid question.

Explain.

While years ago the Taliban were up there in brutality, back in the day, these days they don't randomly massacre villages.

[Latorik]

Explain.

While years ago the Taliban were up there in brutality, back in the day, these days they don't randomly massacre villages.

Didn't they literally just massacre a bunch of Hazaras

[Fahran]

The Taliban don't kill people for not wearing a face veil contrary to Fox News. Now there are probably men who will do that in Afghanistan, a very depressing conception of honor, but it's not a policy of the Taliban.

They do afford them the luxury of lashes, however. And have multiple times.

While years ago the Taliban were up there in brutality, back in the day, these days they don't randomly massacre villages.

Didn't they literally just massacre a bunch of Hazaras

Yes. They also have been ever so delightfully threatening to rape college students.

[Fahran]

Please. Stop. You don't know anything about fiqh or the definition of fitna from scholars. You're off the map. It's embarrassing. Just accept that covering the face is mandatory in the opinion of many distinguished scholars and you disagree with that and oppose it for your own ideological reasons, whatever they may be

Except it's not mandatory in the opinion of Abu Hanifa to my knowledge. Nor in the opinion of most scholars, either historically or today. It's pretty much always been a minority opinion and is scarcely practiced today beyond the Persian Gulf countries, Afghanistan, and Pakistan - and, despite your objections, that's not solely due to secularism or European influence.

Dhabihah slaughter requires cutting the animal's throat toward the qibla while pronouncing the Basmala and out of view of other animals. I'm not even going to get into Kosher rules because you aren't just speaking ignorance, you are proliferating it in a the cocksure style of an expert. Your posts are like balloons, they are empty of content, just a bunch of jargon and nonsense you try to pass off by acting confident about it. They can be popped with just a pinprick of truth. The beginning of wisdom is to admit you don't know what you don't.

https://jewishlouisville.org/kfc-relaun ... this-time/

The principal issue here is that KFC forbids most of its franchises from making religious claims about the quality of its meat. The thing is though... most meat in the US is already kosher. To be halal there are only two additional requirements. To face towards the qibla and to recite a prayer invoking G-d's name. We (Americans) don't tend to leave blood in our meat if we can help it, especially not in our chicken. Several KFC franchisees have actually gotten hit with a hammer by their HQ for serving kosher/halal meat advertised as such in the past. One can suppose they were lying, but, given how common this is and how much it expands the market, I wouldn't be surprised if they were being honest about it. Unless you're being puritannical about it... the meat could easily pass the test.

[Chess Reloaded]

While years ago the Taliban were up there in brutality, back in the day, these days they don't randomly massacre villages.

Didn't they literally just massacre a bunch of Hazaras

No, not any time recently. In fact they protected their Shia observances and it's been the first time in years they observed Ashura without experiencing violence

[Latorik]

Didn't they literally just massacre a bunch of Hazaras

No, not any time recently. In fact they protected their Shia observances and it's been the first time in years they observed Ashura without experiencing violence

They tortured a bunch of Hazaras to death in July

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/08/afghanistan-taliban-responsible-for-brutal-massacre-of-hazara-men-new-investigation/

[Chess Reloaded]

Please. Stop. You don't know anything about fiqh or the definition of fitna from scholars. You're off the map. It's embarrassing. Just accept that covering the face is mandatory in the opinion of many distinguished scholars and you disagree with that and oppose it for your own ideological reasons, whatever they may be

Except it's not mandatory in the opinion of Abu Hanifa to my knowledge. Nor in the opinion of most scholars, either historically or today. It's pretty much always been a minority opinion and is scarcely practiced today beyond the Persian Gulf countries, Afghanistan, and Pakistan - and, despite your objections, that's not solely due to secularism or European influence.

Dhabihah slaughter requires cutting the animal's throat toward the qibla while pronouncing the Basmala and out of view of other animals. I'm not even going to get into Kosher rules because you aren't just speaking ignorance, you are proliferating it in a the cocksure style of an expert. Your posts are like balloons, they are empty of content, just a bunch of jargon and nonsense you try to pass off by acting confident about it. They can be popped with just a pinprick of truth. The beginning of wisdom is to admit you don't know what you don't.

https://jewishlouisville.org/kfc-relaun ... this-time/

The principal issue here is that KFC forbids most of its franchises from making religious claims about the quality of its meat. The thing is though... most meat in the US is already kosher. To be halal there are only two additional requirements. To face towards the qibla and to recite a prayer invoking G-d's name. We (Americans) don't tend to leave blood in our meat if we can help it, especially not in our chicken. Several KFC franchisees have actually gotten hit with a hammer by their HQ for serving kosher/halal meat advertised as such in the past. One can suppose they were lying, but, given how common this is and how much it expands the market, I wouldn't be surprised if they were being honest about it. Unless you're being puritannical about it... the meat could easily pass the test.

It IS mandatory in his opinion if there is a fitna. That is pretty well defined by scholars. If you are unsure what their definition or idea of it is, for God's sake just stop and accept you don't know what you're talking about

Blood being drained from the meat isn't enough to make it Kosher or halal. You should show some shame, I am completely shocked at you, you just went on with your nonsense as if you are impervious to truth. That article just said KFC was kosher in Israel for years and only lately have they ceased to be.

[The Two Jerseys]

No, not any time recently. In fact they protected their Shia observances and it's been the first time in years they observed Ashura without experiencing violence

They tortured a bunch of Hazaras to death in July

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/08/afghanistan-taliban-responsible-for-brutal-massacre-of-hazara-men-new-investigation/

Dude, that was two whole months ago, they're more moderate now. /s

[Chess Reloaded]

No, not any time recently. In fact they protected their Shia observances and it's been the first time in years they observed Ashura without experiencing violence

They tortured a bunch of Hazaras to death in July

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/08/afghanistan-taliban-responsible-for-brutal-massacre-of-hazara-men-new-investigation/

The article cites anonymous witnesses and says it's indicative of widescale slaughter which only isn't documented because the Taliban cut off mobile phone service. They shut off all mobile service in the area. That's horrifying. So horrifying it should be read three or five times.