I disagree with the qiyâs because it is flawed. The arguments are flawed because the theory is unsound.

First, the Qur'ân says that we are not to make harâm that which is not harâm, yet what is being said?

Second, why are there ahadith saying a woman should not flaunt herself in public if she isn't allowed around men? There's a flaw in thinking there, I think.

Third, a large percentage of human beings are not of one sex or another - one in 1000 is visibly intersexed at birth, and even more are intersexed without immediate visible sign. How can we separate the sexes when they are not even clearly demarkated in real life (i.e. outside of a Jurist's head)? Do we just ignore all those people who are born differently?

And what about people whose gender does not match their bodies? Muslim societies have accepted, for example, women working and living as men because of circumstance in the Balkans. Is a woman flaunting herself if she has to go to work with an entire crowd of men without a mahram - there being no mahram for her? The answer has been no, because a working woman is treated like any other person in her position, not like a sex object, by her Muslim (and non-Muslim, where appropriate) coworkers. This dates back to ancient times, and the punishment for illicit sex is very severe and studiously observed - no such person gets pregnant.

My thoughts on how medieval jurists' rulings break down when you leave their coddled little mental world.