dutch bans burka

rami wrote: Bi ismilahir rahmanir raheem is there a reason you are not adressing me directly?

To avoid personalization of the issue in hand, it is sometimes felt more prudent to use tense which reduces such affect. Nothing other than this.

bro rami says "I also said we need to seperate issues. The topic of whether the burqah is fard or not comes from eveidence in the Quran, sunnah and practices and saying of the first 3 generations of muslims."

Now, over here three sources of evidences on which Islamic law is legislated are provided. I don't know if this is from bro Rami's own knowldge or not, but the fact is if all these sources are considered to be the source of Islamic Law, then one can clearly realize that except the Quran, other two are, logically speaking, inherently limited by their scope of applicablitiy both temporally and spatially. Even if one is inclined to admit authentic sunnah in such a generalization, yet the third source can never qualify for a general application. Hence, any law, which is based upon the evidences of "first 3 generations of muslims" can never be considered ubiquitous in its application. 

Bro rami further says "Law is legislated based upon these. Islamic law states that it is wajib, a benefit of wearing it is that it takes away from social preassure, social preassure is not the basis for permisability or impermisability of an act. "

There are two things that one would like to argue in this line of reasoning. Firstly, it is known fact the all humans suffer from societal impressions and idealogies and views. Thus their actions reflect those cultural influences. The broader the horizon of a person is more broader his perspective would be about the world in general, and about his religion, in specific. Hence isolating such influences from the people can viewed in theory; far from reality.

Secondly, some times, the rules are enacted for their obvious benefits and not for the hack of it, otherwise who would go and devise "useless" law hanging in limbo. Therefore, it is infact the society that asks, or begs for the solution of their day to day problems. Once it comes to Muslim society, then scholars try to understand their issues within the legitimate boundaries set by Quran and Sunnah only. If there is no such need by the society, it is hard to imagine the requirement for such a law. 

 Yet from another angle, it is the changing environment of different societies and different culture, that Allah sent different books on earlier prophets with different Shariah, yet the core of the message remained same in all such divine books. With this argument though one may consider Quran with no exception, but the fact is, only Quran, being the last book of guidance from Allah, has this attribute of being ubiquitous in its contents. None of the two other sources that bro rami has presented, in general, qualify for such a merit. It is not to say that one may reject sunnah and only rely on Quran, but to say that authentic sunnah is the way, not the source itself, as how Islamic law must be implemented (difference between the law as opposed to implementation of law). As regard to the third source, as identified by bro rami i.e. "first 3 generations of muslims" is concerned, suffice is to note that except the companions of Prophet, none other can be considered worthy without political baisness. The Islamic history after first 4 Caliphs (the companions of Prophet), is too controversial to consider them as usefull source of Islamic law.

Bro rami says "No i have not frozen time but your argument does not hold, All the major topics and issues have been legislated upon by people the likes of whom you most likely will not encounter, which is why the door to ijtihad had to be closed the standard of high calibr scholars was decreasing dramaticly and most things were known. your argument only apllies to mutaghayirat (newly arisen matters)."

One can easily point out obvious mismatch in the above statement when it is said " No i have not frozen time...... " and in the same breath it is said ".......which is why the door to ijtihad had to be closed........". I don't know who has this authority to "close the door of Ijtihad", though we do see the day to day problems of our society increasing not only in number but in magnitude as well. Classic examples of such issues can be quoted where the women are not allowed to drive cars in one society in the name of Islam and "honor killings" are considered as a legitimate way of shunning the evil away from yet another society. Similarly killing of "apostate" is considered very pious act for Allah on one side and FGC is considered a favourable custom within Islamic traditons on another note.

In the end, I think, I can't  agree more than what bro rami already concludes "If the person so chooses he may not follow it, but you should understand clearly you can not rule that the Burqah under any circumstance is impermisable to wear, which is what i think you are trying to get at."

Yap, I fully agree to this statement. 

Now, over here three sources of evidences on which Islamic law is legislated are provided. I don't know if this is from bro Rami's own knowldge or not, but the fact is if all these sources are considered to be the source of Islamic Law, then one can clearly realize that except the Quran, other two are, logically speaking, inherently limited by their scope of applicablitiy both temporally and spatially. Even if one is inclined to admit authentic sunnah in such a generalization, yet the third source can never qualify for a general application. Hence, any law, which is based upon the evidences of "first 3 generations of muslims" can never be considered ubiquitous in its application.

No this is basic fundamental teachings of islam which you will not find any Sunni Madhhab group or sect disagree's with. If you do not know this already and why it is so, then i would advise learning about Islamic law and what is used to make rulings in Islam, i am afraid much of what i have said and the authority that i am quoting for you and everyone else is going to waste since it seems most do not even understand the basics.

It is not simply the Quran and sunnah that is used as new muslims and uneducated muslims like to repeat. Your logic is sound and i wouldnt disagree with you if you had said it about any other group but the authority for this comes from Rasul allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) himself you just do not know the relavent information.

Briefly i will give you an example of how the actions of the successors and companions are not limited to time and how they are used in Shariah. Saydinah Umar once caught a thief stealing food, the punishment in Islam as clearly stated with out need for interpretaion is that his hand should be cut of. But saydinah Umar did not do this he let him go on the basis that a famine was driving people to do this act. from this two very important islamic principles/maxims/qawaid can be derived.

"Harm must be removed" (Ad-Darrul Yuzaal) and �Hardship begets facility� (Al-mashaqqatu tujlab at-taysir).

this means that it is the responsibility of the Islamic government to remove any harm beffore you can even talk about punishment for crime. Since the famine was driving this person to steal food Saydinah Umar established the fact that the Khalifah has a responsibilty to address this issue before they have a right to punish this person.

These principles are also used in other areas of law and not simply limited to this, the evidence for these principles is also elsewhere not only in this act of saydinah Umar.

There are two things that one would like to argue in this line of reasoning. Firstly, it is known fact the all humans suffer from societal impressions and idealogies and views. Thus their actions reflect those cultural influences. The broader the horizon of a person is more broader his perspective would be about the world in general, and about his religion, in specific. Hence isolating such influences from the people can viewed in theory; far from reality.

This lacks the understanding of what Ihsan is what it entails and what is needed to achieve it, the Qualities required for prophethood as the prophets were perfect examples of Muhsins, and basic knowledge of things our prophet and Allah have said on the matter. A person needs to know the prerequisite knowledge beffore being able to comment on  deep issues in Islam, otherwise all they are doing is logicly analysing a situation with out considering facts and the basis for such matters. You should know why our scholars have done or said certain things not simply comment on the outcome of there rulings.

Secondly, some times, the rules are enacted for their obvious benefits and not for the hack of it, otherwise who would go and devise "useless" law hanging in limbo. Therefore, it is infact the society that asks, or begs for the solution of their day to day problems. Once it comes to Muslim society, then scholars try to understand their issues within the legitimate boundaries set by Quran and Sunnah only. If there is no such need by the society, it is hard to imagine the requirement for such a law.

Human nature and sexual drive do not change from scosiety to scociety and time. In reality the immoral nature of western scociety and the time we are in i could very easily and succefuly argue that the burqah is needed more in our time than in the past.

Yet from another angle, it is the changing environment of different societies and different culture, that Allah sent different books on earlier prophets with different Shariah, yet the core of the message remained same in all such divine books. With this argument though one may consider Quran with no exception, but the fact is, only Quran, being the last book of guidance from Allah, has this attribute of being ubiquitous in its contents. None of the two other sources that bro rami has presented, in general, qualify for such a merit.

Again here you lack basic knowledge needed to understand the issue, I am not talking from my self but what all scholars and any muslim who knows the baiscs of islamic law will tell you sunni or shia. Your reasoning as to why Allah sent different revelation is plainly wrong, he does not bow to us but we to him. Certain things in our genetics  and due to reality itself changing Allah made certain things permisable which were not to prior nations an obvious example of this is life spans Ibrahim (hs) was 1000 + years old if i remember corectly.

not becouse of scosiety or culture this is a western understanding of scociety and comes from the deceptive idea that man is changing for the better due to his surroundings and technology which in reality is nothing but moral degeneration, one hadith highlights this fact excelently "speed is from shaytan".

It is not to say that one may reject sunnah and only rely on Quran, but to say that authentic sunnah is the way, not the source itself, as how Islamic law must be implemented (difference between the law as opposed to implementation of law). As regard to the third source, as identified by bro rami i.e. "first 3 generations of muslims" is concerned, suffice is to note that except the companions of Prophet, none other can be considered worthy without political baisness. The Islamic history after first 4 Caliphs (the companions of Prophet), is too controversial to consider them as usefull source of Islamic law.

on what authority are you saying this, your own reasoning. we are not gods to place our own understanding above that of Allah and his prophet. If i were to quote for you the relavent hadith from rasul allah upon which these generations are taken as a source of legislation  what then of your opinion, you have said it clearly and as if you are certain of your self but what if someone were to read this and follow what you said what then.

Classic examples of such issues can be quoted where the women are not allowed to drive cars in one society in the name of Islam and "honor killings" are considered as a legitimate way of shunning the evil away from yet another society. Similarly killing of "apostate" is considered very pious act for Allah on one side and FGC is considered a favourable custom within Islamic traditons on another note.

These are not examples of Islamic shariah please learn the fundamental points of this Topic rather than offer your opinion as an authority. Do not treat this topic like you do other topics you are talking about the difference between haram and halal.

I respect your opinion and i am not commenting on your inteligance or ability to logicaly analyse a situation, but you need to learn the fundamentals of islamic law from a proper teacher. I dont have the capacity to teach anyone but myself.

Bismillah,

I don't think my sentence makes sense really about permissable.  It was late in the day then. 

So I am referring to your comment that the burqa is required, but that it is okay to only wear the hijab in western countries because of the difficulty it causes sisters.  I am saying a truth that is known among experienced, honest sisters:  Wearing the hijab draws people's attention to us.  They harrass us and worse.  I had men approach me saying the jilbab made me look elegant.  I had many aggressive difficult people harrass me and my kids.  Many things over the years.

People with families to aid them have it easier.  People who know they are here in the west only for a short while can bear it knowing they will have peace soon enough.  People who are foreign-looking do not get hassled the way a white woman does.  They call me a traitor and try to humiliate me in public or in school or work.  They hurt you in quiet ways so that no one will be able to accuse them.  You are alone and your children are ostracized.  The Arabs and Paks have their group and rarely befriend you truly.  Many places there are few western Muslims or they don't have kids your age (you can't bring your noisy child to study or to mosque), whatever the reasons are, society has excluded you as a converted Muslimah oftentimes.

I say very clearly and for all to hear that it is not haram for women to not wear hijab in the west when she and her family are not able to bear the persecution.  And of course the obvious dress code and behavior code is modesty. 

We in the west are not immoral.  I grew up in a moral church as a pious, quiet, modest girl with a reputation for morality. 

Maybe you think I haven't studied, but I have.  For years I memorized Quraan and hadith.  I conclude now that misogynists have interpretations which I am sure with time our good brothers, and sisters if they will recognize our value, will interpret correctly and provide for us to study.  As a reserved lady, I wait for others to do this, and will support them.

I suggest you research the origin of the madhabs, and what came before them.

Bismillah,

When I became a Muslimah, I did it without a sheikh, only with a Qur'aan.  There are no intercessors between me and Allah, SWT.  No one will take my punishment or my reward.  The sheikhs I have consulted have had varied opinions and integrity.  The same treatment occurred for my Muslim sisters.  Too often they favor the brothers when the brothers are there and they console the women, but do nothing to help. 

The communities here are broken because there is very little action.  (Al-Hamdulilah, I do see charity given, but not to a sister who is in difficulties with her husband because they won't take her side.) 

 The Qur'aanic guidance is not generally followed by the men who are advised by sheikhs or other brothers in a difficult family situation, and the brothers, and sisters of the mosque do not step into a difficult family situation to help the sister.  Advice from the podium or given only to the sister and then changed when there is a consultation with the husband deserves Allah, SWT's retribuition.

So that is my feeling on your idea that I am supposed to consult a knowledgeble sheikh.  Please!

Unfortunate???  Wow.  How heartless.

I'll make myself perfectly clear:  Muslim men, sheikhs included, have no right to insist that women wear hijab when they do not wear similar Islaamic clothing all of the time, not just to the masjid.  I can quote you a sheikh or two who disagree with this, so you don't need to.  Think about it.  Women are out their in the public eye, targeted because of their differences, while the men sneak by with jeans and a  beard.  Beards are worn by many faiths and no longer distinguish a man to be a Muslim.  Also the kufa, the white or colorful cap men wear, that has become so stylish that many young guys wear it who are not muslim.  Men who require women to wear hijab should wear the long garments, either Pak, Arab, or African, which everyone recognizes to be Muslim male clothing.

I suggest you read more books about Madhabs, the ones that existed before they were reduced to four.  How much knowledge was lost or thrown away?  (My reference books were stolen years ago.  So I'm suggesting that it would be elucidating for you to study this topic more.)

Anyway, I am not of any of those schools, but if they say something sensible, I'm all for it.  Allah, SWT, gave me my faith and my brain, and I trust him.  He answers my prayers that suit his purpose, and guides me to His light.

Why do people ignore the hadith in Sahih B and M which says that the prophet Muhammad, pbuh, forbade the writing down of his hadiths?

Yeah, I forgot that west-bashing was encouraged on this site.  I have seen more morality here in America than I did in Kuwait or Phalasteen or Jordan.  There is a lot of immoral behavior in those countries, and I have heard about it in others, like Saudi and Pakistan. 

Good, moral people of the world, Muslims and all other faiths, need to unite against evil in this world.  If we defend the evil perpetrated by the Muslims in Saudi or Phalasteen, we are on the devil's side.