/islam/ - 8ch Masjid

>>11006

First of all, we don't wear what we like. We have rules concerning guarding our privacy and our modesty too.

Second, in most nations women do have equal rights to men. The trouble is that puppet regimes and self-proclaimed Caliphs pop up from time to time and don't actually implement shariah - rather they implement whatever their whim decides.

Don't take the Taliban or ISIS as indicators Islamic nations. There are no Islamic nations on earth at this time. Not even the Saudi Kingdom is Islamic, since Islam does not permit human kingdoms. There is no king, save Allah.

In most Muslim nations, women wear hijab and modest clothing. Do not assume that this isn't a choice.

>>11006

> since Islam does not permit human kingdoms

Do you have proof of this? Kingdoms on earth for believers go way back to Dawood (صلى الله عليه و سلم) and Suleiman (صلى الله عليه و سلم).

>>11012

David and Solomon were Jewish.

Islamic government is democratic. The people choose the Caliph and he is not a King who can do anything on a whim. He can be easily replaced.

O Muslims! though you have made me your chief, I am not the best among you. If someone else among you had taken charge of this burden which you have put upon me, it would have been better for me. If you expect that I should rule you just as the Apostle of God did, then I must tell you that it is not possible. The Apostle received Wahi (Revelation) from Heaven, and he was infallible whereas I am an ordinary man. I am not better than you. Abu Bakr, Caliph of Islam.

Man proposes, Allah disposes.

>>11014

>Islamic government is democratic

Ask for proof, and then get a response like this. Far above this secular disaster is the jurisprudence of Allah and his Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

I find the ones most critical of Saudi are those living very secular lifestyles. I have little love or care for the Royal family, but I respect their contribution to Islam and its scholars.

>>11014

>David and Solomon were Jewish

They were messengers to the Children of Israel, but they were Muslims. This is an essential part of our belief.

>>11015

And what about my response is wrong? Point it out.

>>11016

They were Jews, children of Abraham. As so are we all.

>>11017

You didn't give proof that Islam forbids kingdoms. You tried to dismiss the fact Allah has appointed kings in the past by saying they "were Jewish". Allah appoints Talut as king in the Quran (2:247). I haven't seen any clear evidence that kingdoms are impermissible. There has been many Islamic kingdoms in the past, even in West Africa. Yet, I have seen nothing to say they are forbidden. I do see, in the Quran, Allah appointed kings and established kingdoms.

It is a bold statement to make without proof. Are you Shi'a?

Well … this thread has completely derailed.

>>11019

http://monarchyinislam.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-monarchy-allowed-in-islam.html

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090607140758AAoTCdI

http://themuslimtimes.info/2012/11/28/is-saudi-monarchy-islamic/

http://www.sunnah.org/QA/qa2.htm

>>11019

>Are you Shi'a?

What difference does that make?

Note that all Believers - Shi'a, Sunni, Ibadi, Sufi, Druze, Salafi, regardless of masjid affiliation - are welcome on this board. - Board Owner

>>11021

The arguments are terrible in reality. The Muslim Times article clearly doesn't understand how Saudi works. American officials have trouble understanding it. The Ulema in Saudi have part of the rule. It is not just the Royal Family. The relationship between the Saud family and the Ulema is the only reason I care to defend them on this topic. This goes back to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab and his agreement with ibn Saud. I notice a trend that this anti-Saudi argument supports Secular Democracy, and try to say it is more Islamic.

I have seen proof Islamic Kingdoms are permissible and have existed in the past. I haven't seen any proof they are forbidden.

>Why shouldn't they wear what they like? You do.

>You do.

http://www.al-islam.org/code-ethics-muslim-men-and-women-sayyid-masud-masumi/rules-related-covering

>>11280

Is there actually a sister on this board? One that likes undertale?

>>11284

No. Just an avatarfag.

>>11280

Horny little rat

>>11334

Please don't call me that.

>>11392

Forgive our simple minded /pol/ friend. He has not learned yet how to comport himself in civilized company.

I will apologize on his behalf.

>>11393

That's so sweet of you, thanks.

Modesty requirements are for both men and women. Because of culture and politics requirements tend to be strictly enforced for women but loosely for men but this is culture not religion. In truth both men and women must dress modestly but full coverings like the burka or niqab are completely unnecessary. Men's clothing must be loose and while most say that it must only cover from knees to naval but unless you are laboring outside I would argue true modesty would entail covering the legs down to the ankles the full torso with long sleeves and preferably a hat or other head covering so basically the same requirements for women. But I am not a scholar that is just my opinion.

As for most other issues women do have many rights under Islam virtually all gender discrimination in "Muslim" countries is culture and politics separate from or even directly opposed to Islam. In fact there are some areas where women are meant to have more rights than men. Women are allowed to keep the money they earn separate but men are required to use their money to support their family.