-
Ruling About Improper Dress
The ruling criteria of any state is always in the welfare of citizens. It’s not necessary that majority of citizens are happy with that ruling or not. If that ruling is in the favor of civilian then that law will be enforced forcefully. One current example is that Now in Pakistan Govt. is forcefully vaccinating people and it’s heard that in upcoming days there will be strict actions against vaccination defaulters. There are lot of people who have objections on vaccination. In pakistan, govt is applying Chinese vaccination which is not acceptable in most part of the world. But Govt knows that it’s in favor of society and individuals so State is forcefully applying.
Now my question is it’s also obvious due to unfair dressing, obscenity is spreading in society. Then why Govt. Cannot make ruling in favor of society. Isn’t it dual standard?
If Govt. cannot forcefully vaccinate people, then please tell me.
-
34 Replies
-
Ruling About Improper Dress
updated 3 years, 4 months ago
8 Members
·
34
Replies
-
Governments generally can’t coerce people to get vaccinated. I don’t know of any other country where vaccinations are being forced. To the contrary certain countries are offering incentives to get vaccinated. I’m not sure whether this measure in Pakistan is legal or not – this would require an opinion from a legal expert.
-
Not only pakistan, many countries in the world(including many countries of Europe) are doing this. In oppose to this, one bold movement is again raising with the name of “Anti-Vaxxer”. (You can Google it.) Thousands of people are striking in France
-
Same is the case with polio vaccine if you’re not going to take it to your children, you will face legal action. In the FIR, state is Claimant. You know what’s its meaning, it is considered as a betrayal against state. No one even raised his voice against this.
Ghamidi Sb should show courage and record one statement against this as he recorded videos against other interference of state in this type of affairs.
Regards
May Allah Bless him
-
-
Obscenity is a Munkar, and a govt can forcefully stop it.
-
By validating a proper rule of code for dress???
-
A govt is not supposed to prescribe a dress code, it can exercise its authority when there is obscenity in dress. and yes this is on the basis of Sadd e Zarya, that it may not lead to adultery.
-
-
Ghamidi Sahab has expressed his view on domain of law making for a government and what should we do in case we disagree with that.Government cannot prescribe a dress code but can make sure that no open obscenity takes place.
-
@umerqureshi my question is still unanswered. Ghamidi sb reply about my question is vague. He said state can interfere in anything which causes haq talfi and zulam. Obscenity is neither haq talfi nor zulam.
I came to the point as adultery is prohibited and state can interfere on the principle of sadd e zariya. So we can say state can interfere if someone is causing of obscenity by wearing improper dress. Because due to obscenity, there will be imbalance in society.
-
Sadd e zariya is very much important in this case. There can be many rules which can be enforced using this. Like force parents to marry their son and daughter asap because late in marriage can create imbalance in society (adultery will be promoted)
-
Forcing early marriage is interfering with a personal matter, which is not allowed. Govt can suggest and facilitate but cannot enforce it. Right time for marriage is different for different people, that is why no ruling can be imposed. That is why Quran suggest that those who do not find NIkah should stay clean with Sabr.
وَلْيَسْتَعْفِفِ الَّذِينَ لَا يَجِدُونَ نِكَاحًا حَتَّىٰ يُغْنِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ
And as for those who are unable to marry, let them live in continence until God grants them sufficiency out of His bounty۔ 24:33
-
-
On which principle, state enforce citizens to wear helmet and seat ballets
-
Due to hurmat of life.
-
But ghamidi sb said. Haq talfi and zulam
-
I think he said in the context of question, Govt is suppose to save human lives too.
Loss of Human life might be categorized in Zulm too. -
@ahsanjalal you’re pursuing my first argument “The ruling criteria of any state is always in the welfare of citizens. It’s not necessary that majority of citizens are happy with that ruling or not. If that ruling is in the favor of civilian then that law will be enforced forcefully.”
-
There are certain limits to what can be enforced. The validation should come from Quran o Sunnah
-
Using this logic many laws can be enforced
-
Peace!
On حق تلفی. I believe one’s own life, property and honour is also included in حق تلفی. So, enforcing something to ensure that people take care of their own life, property and honour probably should be allowed for the government. After that, we can discuss the finer details regarding what should be enforced and what should be encouraged.
My question to you, if you are talking about Pakistani society, is: where do you see inappropriate dresses? I am a student and usually remain in my house, so, when people talk about obsenity spreading in the society, I don’t quite understand. When I go out, I don’t see people dressing inappropriately. Moreover, what do you mean by “unfair dressing?”
-
A dress which stimulates the emotion of other
-
First of all, do you agree with the idea that the government enforces helmets and seat belts under the category of حق تلفی?
Secondly, can you give examples of dresses which you feel stimulate the emotions of others? Of course, we can’t just say that a regular Shalwar Qamees is responsible for stimulating the emotions, because some stimulation is going to occur in the opposite sexes anyways.
-
No I don’t agree with the idea of haq talfi. Haq talfi is eagles too collective not individual
-
Peace!
Sorry, I do not understand. Can you try changing the wording? حق تلفی is حق تلفی whether done at an individual level or a communal level. Please elaborate.
-
So far as an ideal dress is concerned, it’s not available. We can decrease the simulations of emotion but not fully stop. As by wearing helmet, we decrease the chance of injury not stop.
-
-
According to Ghamidi sb, it’s okay to enforce the law “permit first wife for second marriage” where is haq talfi or zulam in it. This is related to educating society.
-
how to run affairs, which are not wholly in control of me?
ask permission to all those who can make to control the matter wholly,
in community, new disease spread, doctors try to control it.
anyone wanting to stop them? with what? knowledge or power?
trying to stop with knowledge, do sabr, then hear that person, look at evidences, do continuous experiments.. if the given statement is objective truth, then all the doctors and people of knowledge are agreed to him..
trying to stop with power, do sabr and spread the truth, more power used to suppress then disassociate from community openly! more power used even to kill you, then do migration,
if in the concerned community people don’t believe in God and that this whole universe will end one day and also not prohibit what God & his messenger made prohibited & also don’t follow the objective truth, then announce war against those who rejected your objective truths, until they pay yearly sum of money to you, and remain as less dignified of rest of citizens
salam..
-
-
how to run affairs, which are not wholly in control of me?
ask permission to all those who can make to control the matter wholly,
in community, new disease spread, doctors try to control it.
anyone wanting to stop them? with what? knowledge or power?
trying to stop with knowledge, do sabr, then hear that person, look at evidences, do continuous experiments.. if the given statement is objective truth, then all the doctors and people of knowledge are agreed to him..
trying to stop with power, do sabr and spread the truth, more power used to suppress then disassociate from community openly! more power used even to kill you, then do migration,
if in the concerned community people don’t believe in God and that this whole universe will end one day and also not prohibit what God & his messenger made prohibited & also don’t follow the objective truth, then announce war against those who rejected your objective truths, until they pay yearly sum of money to you, and remain as less dignified of rest of citizens
salam..
-
for a logical and definite end, I want to conclude all the discussion till now
*part 1*
first of all, my point of view was “The ruling criteria of any state is always in the welfare of citizens. It’s not necessary that majority of citizens are happy with that ruling or not. If that ruling is in the favor of civilian then that law will be enforced forcefully.”
Ghamidi Sb point of view is “laws can only be enforced when there is haq talfi and ziadti” additionally he said that we can also enforce law related to adultery prohibition.
I supported my argument with two examples in counter of ghamidi sb stance1. forcefully polio vaccination
2. wearing helmet
3. wearing seat ballet
none of this example can be categorized in haq talfi or ziadti
Now, there are two situations:
a. interpret these examples according to ghamidi sb stance
b. interpret ghamidi sb stance according to these examples
*part 2*
this part of my question is related to obscenity. we all are agree that improper dress causes obscenity in society. obscenity makes imbalance in society. how to enforce people to wear proper dress.
@faisalharoon @umerqureshi @irfanshehzad
-
Peace!
Talha Bhai, please read my full response and then answer.
I do not agree with your first point, as of now. The purpose of a government, I agree, is the welfare of the community, but that has to be done according to the wishes of the majority. You cannot make the majority slaves to your wishes for welfare. So, it is definitely necessary that the majority of the citizens are happy with the law. That is what a democracy is. The government is the representative of the majority, so if the majority is unhappy with a law, it will either be convinced by the government that the law is a necessary one or it will have it repealed one way or the other.
I believe the position of Ghamidi Sahab is that laws preventing or punishing منكر can be passed by the government, if the parliament decides it (of course, the majority will still either be convinced or repeal the law).
Regarding polio vaccinations, the government is just providing the child its right. If the vaccine is free, then it is the child’s right. How is that forceful? I don’t understand. Anyone preventing the vaccination may be depriving the child of a blessing of God of a healthy life and one can’t do that without an explicit reason.
Regarding forceful wearing of helmets and seatbelts, I do not understand how you do not agree that that can be حق تلفی and نہ حق زیادتی against yourself and your relatives if you get injured. It may not be any of these things if you do not get injured, but if you do, surely, it is both of these things. The government has full right to intervene regarding these issues.
Once again, if the majority does not want these laws, it can have them repealed through discussion and convincing. You cannot enforce something unless the majority gives you permission. You are a representative of the majority.
Regarding dress, I have asked you previously, what sort of dresses are you talking about and where are they being worn? You can make laws, sensible laws, to prevent منکر but you haven’t answered any of my questions regarding this.
1) What sort of dress do you call “improper” or “unfair”? And according to whose definition?
2) Where are these being worn?
By the way, you cannot force people to wear anything. You can only prevent منكر. That is, if their dress is agreed upon by at least the local populace to be indecent. Furthermore, regarding something the Quran has talked about in detail, we will not step beyond what the Quran has already taught us.
-
-
Taking no measures to protect human life is the greatest haq talfi. What is greater than losing human life for not wearing helmet and seat belt ?
Obscenity may causes havoc to a society so a govt is supposed to come forward to stop it.
Now the question is, can a govt prescribe a dress code too, like what to wear? That would be considered transgression. The correct approach is to allow people choose any dress that they like according to their taste and culture but without any obscenity.
-
What’s the solution according to you.
-
I suppose solution is there in my response.
-
On which basis, France enforce the law that women cannot wear hijab on public places?
-
I would like to give you a different perspective and it may be opposite to many in this forum.
Individual rights & freedoms
Individual rights and freedoms are the most sacred and important thing that people need to struggle to preserve. It is the governments responsibility to provide such rights and freedoms to every citizen.
– BUT, there is no such things as individual rights and freedom when one’s freedom encroaches on other’s rights and freedoms.
– Also, society and government can’t go overboard trying to protect human life forcefully from the person himself (except for intentional suicide) when the person’s actions do not impact other people. This is oppression!
For example.
1. @Irfan76 Most respectfully, Protection of human life is the most important thing, only when…
a. Protection is required from the actions of others. (war, robberies, murders, etc.)
b. Protection from nature (disasters & diseases)
c. Or when a person is trying to commit suicide
Beyond this trying to preserve someone’s life is usurping person’s rights and freedom. It is oppression.
1. If someone doesn’t want to wear helmet and the person has bought extra medical insurance to cover his medical expenses, no one has the right to force the person to wear a helmet. What is next? We will force people to eat healthy? We’ll force people to exercise daily? Where would this end?
2. No one has the right to vaccinate a person forcefully if the person decides to live a solitary life away from other people and forfeit his right to medical treatment from COVID.
BUT, if the person want to live with others, then he should be forcefully vaccinated with a reasonably safe and approved vaccine. The is because, the person has no right to spread disease to others and be a host to generate new mutation of viruses. He has no right to use medical insurance expecting others to share his cost of medical treatment. He has no right to a bed or medical equipment in the hospital; when the bed or equipment is needed by someone else. -
Agreed 🤝
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
