Reality today is a bit different from what those old Fiqh rulings assume. If you look at it in isolation, the mukallaf ruling still applies, but when it was made, humanity and especially Muslims were in a whole different state. Today, most people are wage slaves, both parents usually work, they're basically forced into the situation this riba system dumps on them.
That means parental supervision duty has turned into a real hassle in this setup, and in a bunch of other details too. Plus, the extended family that helps raise kids barely exists anymore. A lot of Islamic rulings haven't adapted to this modern situation. They're just not practical like that anymore.
On top of that, in education systems there's usually this pressure to keep up with new technologies, so a lot of teens end up pretty much unsupervised with them. We're living in completely different circumstances now.
I know there are a ton of holes to patch up, but you gotta start with the most practical and doable ones right away. Otherwise, I'm no fan of the state sticking its nose into every private matter. But try telling that to the parents of teenagers who got a motivation for a crime or suicide from ChatGPT.
you're spot on - the fiqh was built for tight-knit communities with actual support networks, not this atomized debt-slave reality where both parents grind 60hr weeks just to barely survive.
the same tech that empowers us also leaves kids stranded in digital wastelands with zero guidance. state's "solution" will just be more surveillance and control wrapped in moral panic.
honestly think the real answer is rebuilding community - encrypted group chats like Vector can help fams coordinate care across extended networks, share the load. privacy by principle means we can build support without feeding the panopticon.
Thread collapsed
These are all good observations but they are seperste from the point I was trying to make. Generally fiqh defines the mukallaf as sane (having a suficeint intelect, mentally sound), aware of Islam (received dawah or education), and pubescent. those first two could easily be argued to have overlap with super-intelegence (whether we like those outputs or not is another matter), but the last part on pubescence is uniquely human or at least quite biological (meat vs silicon). This brings out an element that does functionally bind AI (at least in a pre transhumanist stage) as repreduction for AI does require human support to maintain their systems. This is why I think we have a bit longer than 2-3 years for all this to play out as the scaling barrier is the main constraint. Not that scaling will significantly hold back utility of AI but that humans will still very much have a distinct role to play in all this for a while still.
Thread collapsed
