u/Pretend_Door8037

Life is Strange 2 is my most favourite game in the franchise, but it was also very politically charged and that's one of the reason it received a lot of harsh criticisms which I understand. Now I'm not from the U.S and therefore not well versed in the U.S politics. A lot of criticisms said that the racial discrimination in this game was too exaggerated, but as I don't live there I can't comment on that.

However, for the last one year I've been seeing a lot of videos on youtube regarding ICE detaining immigrants in the U.S and shooting people. Today I was watching this documentary “We Tracked ICE Flights Across America. What We Found Surprised Us”, and while watching this it came to my mind that Sean and Daniel's story would have fit a lot better in this setting than the original story. At 2:40 mark in the documentary, they interviewed a detainee who actually wanted to leave the U.S and go back to Nicaragua, but ICE wanted to send them to a different U.S state in a different detention center. So think about this, instead of a random police officer shooting Esteban, ICE agents stormed their place and killed him which resulted in Daniel gaining his power. The rest of the game is about the brothers running away from ICE agents and wanting to escape to Mexico, but ICE wants to send them to a concentration camp and they are also charged with murdering ICE agents at the same time. I think the overall theme would have fit much better.

I know back in 2018-19, ICE wasn’t as aggressive as they appear in today. But nowadays whenever I see any news regarding ICE, it just reminds me of Life is Strange 2.

I asked in other Islamic subreddits too, but instead of answering my question they are calling him a jahil, kafir, deviant. I hope someone here will answer the actual question I'm looking for

What made it interesting to me is that it wasn't simply another “Muslims need to make more Islamic content” discussion. It directly got into the uncomfortable question of whether some of our own fiqh interpretations are making Muslim creative work unnecessarily difficult.

Nouman Ali Khan brings up music, actors and actresses, animation, and the strange lengths Muslim creators sometimes go to because of concerns about what is halal and haram. He even jokes about Islamic cartoons being made without eyes, or depictions where someone's head is literally floating above their shoulders because drawing a normal human figure is considered problematic. His point is basically that we need some serious clarity here if we actually expect Muslims to compete in modern creative media.

And Ibrahim Eren's story was even funnier. He says that when he started producing cartoons and animations, he asked a friend whether he could draw cartoons and was told, “No, you can't, it's haram.” So he literally found another friend who told him it was halal and continued 🤣. He also describes other situations where questions about depicting women and other ordinary creative decisions became major religious obstacles.

Then Sherif Hassan al-Banna talks about music from his own experience in Islamic media production. He says that, theologically, they did not hold the opinion that music was haram, but they were operating in an environment where music was widely treated as forbidden. Their first album was therefore percussion-only. Eventually they produced both a percussion version and a version with music, and the music version ended up being far more successful. His broader argument is really interesting: sometimes the content producers themselves can help move the fiqh conversation forward rather than waiting for the entire audience to become comfortable first.

---

This is what I think should be discussed more often.

If music is actually permissible within appropriate boundaries, and depicting people and creating normal animation is permissible, then why are we telling Muslim artists that they have to work around restrictions that aren't actually necessary? Why should a Muslim animator have to remove eyes from characters or make bizarrely incomplete human figures just to satisfy an interpretation of Islamic law?

And if a Muslim musician can create meaningful, morally serious music without anything inherently immoral in the lyrics or presentation, why should the mere presence of musical instruments automatically turn the entire thing into haram?

I actually think the more restrictive opinion has a real-world consequence that we don't talk about enough: it can discourage talented Muslims from entering creative fields in the first place.

We keep asking, “Why don't Muslims have our own Disney, Pixar, Netflix, anime industry, music industry, etc.?” But then some of the same communities place enormous religious restrictions on the exact tools that artists, filmmakers, animators and musicians use to create those things.

Maybe the problem isn't that Muslim artists aren't creative enough. Maybe we've sometimes made creativity unnecessarily difficult for them.

I really enjoyed the panel because it doesn't just ask Muslims to “make more Islamic content.” It raises a much more uncomfortable question: what happens when our interpretation of fiqh becomes so restrictive that the artist has almost nothing left to work with?

Seeing Nouman Ali Khan being more permissive of music and drawing was honestly refreshing.

The mosque was built by Aman Ullah in 1741-42 during the reign of the Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah. Between 1911 and 1928, Bazra zamindars (A zamindar in the Indian subcontinent was an autonomous or semi-autonomous feudal lord of a feudal estate) Khan Bahadur Ali Ahmad and Khan Bahadur Mujir Uddin Ahmad had it extensively repaired and decorated with mosaics made from colored shards of ceramic. It is in a fairly good state of preservation, and is on the Bangladeshi Department of Archaeology list of protected sites.

The foundation of the Qassabtuly (or Qasbabtuly/Qasbabtuli) Jam-e-Masjid (Hijri 1338), laid by Abdul Bari Bepari and others and situated in old town Dhaka in Bangladesh, was built in the year of 1919. It is also known as "Koshaituly Jam-e-Masjid" referring to "koshais" (butchers) who used to dwell at the old town.

This three-flute-domed mosque is studded with pieces of ceramic or chini-tikri. Beautiful floral motifs, star-shaped inscriptions and the geometric designs around the inner halls mask the architecture of the Mughals. The interiors of this mosque contains flower vases, floral motifs and Arabic Calligraphy.

Question:

Mr. Ghamidi, one question is about your point of view regarding co-education. Some people believe that wherever there is a mixed gathering, the chances of fitnah increase. They point, for example, to our gatherings and processions today, saying that because they are mixed gatherings, disorder and unruly behavior occurs. So what is your view regarding co-education and mixed gatherings?

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi:

The thing is that this is not something new that has appeared in the modern age. During the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, women would come to the mosque to pray. They participated in gatherings and went outside to work. They carried out all these activities. So the fact that something is mixed is not, in itself, the fundamental issue.

Society should be properly educated and people should be taught how they are supposed to deal with women: how to preserve their dignity, respect and honor.

Look at the time of the Messenger of Allah. Women would come to the mosque to pray. You know that today you have arranged separate routes, installed lights, and even stationed police officers. That kind of arrangement did not exist at that time.

There is a narration, as you know, about a woman who was raped. What should have happened? Should the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, have immediately imposed a restriction saying, "No woman will come to the mosque anymore"? He did not do that. He punished the person who committed the crime, and punished him severely, as an exemplary punishment.

Similarly, there is the famous incident involving a shepherdess. A similar situation occurred there. The Messenger of Allah did not say the next day, "Women are now prohibited from going outside to tend their animals."

Civilization is never simply stopped. The religion of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, is represented by his person and his teachings. No other human being can make something a religious ruling on his own. Whatever someone else says, I have emphasized this in response to several questions before: it is a matter of obtaining sadd al-dhari'ah — taking precaution by blocking possible means to harm.

For example, a father may tell his daughter, "It is not appropriate for you to go out at this time." That is not necessarily a religious command. Similarly, the ruler of a Muslim society may, on a particular occasion, tell people to behave in a certain way.

But there are many things that we do not like on the basis of this principle. Many things become part of our cultural and civilizational traditions. Regarding such things, sometimes we take precautions, sometimes greater precautions, and sometimes we advise people to exercise greater caution.

But declaring something categorically unlawful as a matter of religion belongs to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. You and I cannot do that. He is the one regarding whom it is said that what he conveys is from Allah. At most, what you and I can say is, "I do not like this," or, "In my opinion, it is better to be cautious," or, "I think you should avoid doing this." Beyond that, we do not have the authority to make religious declarations.

So the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not give any instruction prohibiting this matter, nor did he tell women not to participate in these aspects of life. Therefore, women will play their role in the affairs of life.

In today's world, how would you even implement such a restriction? Will women not go to hospitals and perform their responsibilities? Will they not teach in colleges? Will they not teach at universities? Are you in a position to immediately establish separate institutions for women and separate institutions for men?

That is not how things work.

The Messenger of Allah himself delivered sermons. He delivered the Eid sermon and the Friday sermon, and women were present in the mosque. In the case of Eid, there is a particularly detailed narration describing the arrangement: women were sitting on one side and men were sitting on the other.

So these kinds of things are not the essence of Allah's religion. Allah's religion addresses human beings precisely where it is appropriate to address them.

The Quran says something very beautiful when addressing the People of the Book. They too were a religious community. Allah says not to go to extremes in your religion, not to adopt ghuluw — excessiveness or extremism — and not to add things from yourselves.

Therefore, what we should be emphasizing is that women have to teach, they have to perform operations, they have to work in hospitals, they have to participate in political activities, they have to participate in economic activities, and they have to receive education.

What opportunities for education are available today and what opportunities are not? You know that sometimes women have to go to other countries to obtain an education. All of these things are part of life.

You do not have the right to prevent them from any of these things merely on the basis of your own preferences.

What our government and society should ensure is that women are provided with a safe, dignified and respectable environment. Men should be warned not to behave improperly, and arrangements should be made for women's safety. That is the responsibility of a society.

What kind of approach is this? I say, let us reverse the argument: impose the restriction on men. Tell men not to go outside. Why should the restriction always be placed on women? Put it on men instead and say, "All men should now stay at home."

But obviously men cannot simply be prohibited from going out because they have economic responsibilities and have to deal with economic matters. Women are also participating in economic activities.

On the one hand, you say that women should be treated by female doctors. Well, then how will those female doctors become doctors? They will have to go to medical college and study. Then they will have to specialize in a particular field in order to treat patients.

Some areas of specialization are particularly advanced and may require women to travel to Western countries for training. Women have to do all of this.

So, please, step back from your present position and ask: Did Allah prohibit this? Did the Messenger of Allah prohibit this?

I say with full responsibility that there is no such prohibition in the Quran and there is no such prohibition in the Hadith.

The Quran and Hadith have always given us guidelines concerning proper conduct. Tell women about the manners and guidelines that have actually been given to them. And tell men to restrain their desires and discipline themselves.

Their gaze should also be the gaze of a decent and honorable human being. When a woman goes outside, a man should understand how he is supposed to respect and honor her.

Creating this respect is the responsibility of society. It is not the job of society to prevent women from going outside. These are impractical things that are being demanded.

---

Question:

Mr. Ghamidi, you just mentioned in your discussion that during Eid sermons there are narrations describing men sitting on one side and women sitting on the other. So the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did take this precaution — that men would be on one side and women on the other.

But we see that in the Haram, during Hajj and Umrah, there is no such segregation. Men and women perform Tawaf together, and obviously they sometimes even come into physical contact with one another. Why is that precaution not taken there?

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi:

Where it is possible, do it; where it is not possible, don't.

The example you yourself have given makes the point completely clear: this does not fundamentally have anything to do with what is lawful or unlawful. These are matters of etiquette.

And etiquette can change within a society according to circumstances.

The circumstances and needs that exist today did not exist in exactly the same form in the past.

I myself saw this during my childhood. My childhood was spent in the Sahiwal region. You know that cotton is cultivated there. The work of picking cotton is done by women, while men also work there. Women and men work together, and there are large gatherings of people.

There are many such activities that women perform in villages and cities. As a result of modern civilizational changes, women are now doing some kind of work in every sphere of life. They participate everywhere.

If Allah or His Messenger has prohibited any of these things, then please tell me what exactly was prohibited.

This is something we must understand about religion: we should not take our own culture and traditions, turn them into religion, and then use them as the basis for imposing restrictions.

The only restrictions that should exist are those that Allah and His Messenger have actually prescribed.

The instructions given to women in the Quran, in Surah al-Nur, should be explained to Muslim women. Those are the instructions. You know what those instructions are.

Men have also been told to exercise restraint in their gaze. Men have also been told to protect their private parts.

There is one matter that is emphasized more specifically for women: when they have adorned themselves and beautified themselves, they should keep their bodies covered in the prescribed manner. And the Quran itself says, "except what normally appears thereof" (illa ma zahara minha).

This is what our responsibility is: tell women these instructions.

And when women understand the religion, they themselves observe these things. These are matters of etiquette and civilizational custom. Such customs should certainly exist.

But how can you impose a restriction preventing women from going outside?

Allah and His Messenger did not impose such a restriction. Therefore, it is not our responsibility to impose such restrictions either.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwg7ky12g14jo

Facebook alternate

Some people have the misconception that Mufti Abu Layth believes homosexuality (the sexual act/intercourse) is permissible is because of his videos such as this

• Homosexuality and Islam -Mufti Abu Layth

He made that video in response to the discussion going on in Europe at that time about the punishment of Homosexuality in Islam. In that video Mufti Abu Layth gave references to some scholars in Muslim history, he never said that he agreed with them. Even in the video he very clearly said that he doesn’t agree with them on homosexuality, but he did acknowledge that these perspectives existed. But because he discussed about their views for the entire lengths in these videos basically, many people automatically assumed that Mufti Abu Layth permits the act of homosexuality, like this man in this video clip.

---

The video clip you're seeing above is taken from this video: “Muslim Scholars Allying With LGBTQ Community ? | Mufti Abu Layth”. Here Mufti Abu Layth clarified that just because he referenced them, that does not mean he agrees with them.

---

For context: The guest was talking about Sheikh Omar Suleiman attending a rally (which happened many years ago) where he held hands with LGBTQ people and unknowingly participated in a Pagan ritual. While talking about LGBTQ, he was saying that homosexuality is haram and he knows that Mufti Abu Layth disagrees with homosexuality being haram, and then mentioned that previous video. Mufti Abu Layth responded to his assumption and explained that just because he referenced some people from the past, that does not mean he adopts their views on homosexuality.

---

Mufti Abu Layth shared his actual view on homosexuality being haram in this Q&A:

• Plymouth University Q&A

Is this like manipulation by these sheikhs? This video just came and I have no idea how I should react to this.

Of course I can quote Mufti Abu Layth and Dr Khaled Abou El Fadl's views on applying the sharia punishments today, but that's not the point of the discussion here. The fact that every single one of them raised their hands when the speaker asked them to irks me

And not to mention that this will fuel the Norwegian right wingers.

It's often being said that laymen should not choose to follow the easiest opinions between the different madhabs and to follow a scholar. But what if the scholar picks the most lenient opinions? Is it okay to follow that scholar then?

---

Egypt's Dar Al Ifta is the official governmental Islamic body responsible for religious legal rulings. Dar Al Ifta and the Grand Muftis of Egypt often choose the most lenient scholarly opinions when it comes to different matters.

The 18th Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa for example follows the Shafii madhab according to Wikipedia. But he adopts the Hanafi opinion on nikah which allows women to marry without a wali. On dogs, he adopts the Maliki opinion of dogs not being najis (including dog saliva) and allows keeping dogs inside the house (Egypt's Dar Al Ifta also adopts the Maliki position on the ritual purity of dogs).

Sheikh Ali Gomaa also allows shaking hands between men and women. He was asked about this handshakes breaking wudu and he said one can follow Imam Abu Hanifa's opinion of touching not breaking wudu. He also answered a Question on Dar Al Ifta Egypt regarding touching women breaking the wudu and in the answer he mentioned the Hanafi and Maliki opinion only despite following the Shafii madhab.

---

So would it still be problematic to pick and choose the easiest and most lenient opinions from the different madhabs?