Ibn Tayyar

al salamu alayum 1. I don't believe I stated Iran should use military force to change the status of the oppressed Shi'a. Such an assertion would be nonsensical. Iran has many ways where it could leverage its position as a strong neighbour and trading partner to help the Shi'a in these countries. It could tie their plight to economic (trade) and diplomatic deals, for example. Iran has many cards in its hands to assist the Shi'a. It could encourage Shi'i businesses in Iran to prioritise business with the Shi'a over others, and make it easier for the Shi'a in those countries to do business in Iran. It could actually start by addressing the issues Afghan refugees in Iran go through when it comes to their mistreatment. 2. I don't believe you should attempt to make these groups like us as Shi'a, but it is noteworthy that they have within them people that hate us, or are indifferent to our suffering. If an openly Salafi-Takfiri group was in Gaza fighting the Zionists, would you lend support to them? Would you legitimise them? Open offices for them? I personally draw the line at supporting groups when they have committed openly anti-Shi'a actions. I think it is flawed to dismiss Hamas's anti-Shi'i side and paint them as nothing more than heroes, which the current Shi'i media space does. 3. Internal Shi'i strife wasn't my point, perhaps I should have elaborated further on my point. There is internal Shi'i strife even inside Iran. Most of these issues are based on political issues within Shi'i society, such as parties warring with eachother in Iraq, nationalist sentiment rising, and the such. I do not look at this in the same way as Hamas stabbing us in the back on religious grounds. Why did they stand against us? Was it not to show solidarity with those who are chopping our heads because they believe our blood is halal? These people are opposed to you due to their religious doctrine. If a Shi'i is willing to kill his own Shi'i brethren - on religious grounds - he would have committed apostasy. That is kufr. Question to you my brother. Who has been Iran's most loyal friends? Are they not all Shi'a? Is Iran not mostly reliant on Shi'a for its geopolitical interests? Do you not believe it is natural for Shi'a to gravitate to other Shi'a? Thank you for your insight brother.

@mahmood8726 insha Allah I will respond to you in due time brother. Thank you again for your response.

salam alaykum brother What I mean by prioritising ourselves is turning towards our neglected Shi'a communities in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are oppressed and killed on a daily basis. Iran opened an Office for the Taliban in Tehran and completely normalised these nawasib ghouls as legitimate actors. This is despite the blood of thousands of Shi'a in their hand. Is it wrong to call this a mistake? Is it wrong to criticise the fact that Iran turned to Hamas so many times despite their pro-Saddam history and their pro-FSA position in the middle of the Syrian conflict, when the Shi'a were at risk of extermination? Where was their sympathy for us? How easily are we duped to believe such groups can "change" their position, and that their anti-Shi'ism can be cured? My heart pains for the people in Gaza, and I am not against supporting them - it is the duty of the Muslim to extend a hand to his oppressed Muslim brother. My problem is the failure in resource management. Neglecting our own and relying on nawasib. Your Shi'i brother is your real ally. He won't stab you in the back when you need him. As for Hamas and their likes, as long as Turkish and Qatari money is involved (the money that killed thousands of Shi'a), they will sell you out in an instant.

salam alaykum I don't believe I said that brother. But I believe in prioritising ourselves over others. That is the view of all nations and people, for example Iran would prioritise Iranians over non-Iranians. That is natural and normal, and what all Governments should do. Is it wrong to call for the attention of the Shi'a to be directed at oppressed and suffering Shi'a populations? I have no issue with assisting Sunnis, in fact I believe it is honourable for one to sacrifice himself for such a noble cause, and we can do more do two or three things at once, but it is simply a matter of priority for me and where we direct our resources. That is all.

With regard to what you quoted, I'm specifically speaking of the rocket fire that occurred post-ceasefire (happened a few days ago), which Hezbollah literally said was a warning shot for ceasefire violations.

wa alaykum al salam I believe it is based on my own rational analysis. Happy to be proven wrong. But let me address your points one by one, and insha Allah you will also see my perspective. What does it tell you when one side violates the ceasefire hundreds of times and the other site barely does anything in response, beside a few rocket warning shots? What does it tell you when Hezbollah has already started a campaign to compensate those whose property was destroyed or damaged? This does not give you the impression that Hezbollah has the will to keep on fighting, does it? It tells you that Israel is acting in impunity, does it not? It is clear to me that Hezbollah wants to move past this chapter, especially with the current debacle in Syria, which is no doubt interrupting the logistical support to Hezbollah from Iran and its other allies. Brother, you can only do so many things at once. Tell me, before Israel commenced its escalatory behaviour after the pager attack, with the killing of tens of Hezbollah's commanders and leaders swiftly after that, and significantly increasing its aistrikes aswell as beginning the ground operation in Lebanon, would Hezbollah have accepted this same ceasefire? No, because it went against everything Nasrallah talked about in his speeches. The Hezbollah official narrative was the fighting stops in Lebanon when it stops in Gaza, and that was the message given to American and French mediators. Until Hezbollah changed its stance. Why did it change its stance? Because of external military pressure aswell as internal political pressure. The damage was nowhere near disproportionate. Remember when Nasrallah said for every building that is destroyed in Lebanon, we will destroy a building in Israel? Hezbollah fought bravely and admirably for a group that lost its command structure. But you know what would have been better for Hezbollah? Had they not lost their command structure in the first place. It is clear Israel won the intel and counter intel battle. I don't think anyone would dispute that. Even if I grant you that, all this tells me is Hezbollah did not want to attempt to deter Israel by engaging in equal fire, the doctrine which Nasrallah spoke about repeatedly. Israel had told its citzens to prepare for 2 thousand to 5 thousand rockets and shells being fired from Lebanon on a daily basis. That never happened. All the while Israel engaged in an air camapign whose scale was probably not seen since the American war on Iraq. Does this not tell you Israel was in control of the escalation ladder from the beginning? Brother, the only large scale damage that was done was in border towns. Nasrallah had talked about the importance of the industrial, political and security infrastructure in Israel's major cities, and how Israel is vulnerable due to how interlinked they are. They were not significantly damaged at all. What I'm saying is, Hezbollah did not achieve anything Israel did not expect it to achieve. It knew the Iron Dome could not possibly intercept all rockets from South Lebanon, especially in the border region. Which is why it evacuated the settlers in the first place, before even commencing the ground operation by months prior to it beginning. In 2006, Hezbollah achieved many surprises against Israel. In this war, everything Israel prepared for did happen. I don't believe Israel significantly damaged Iran either, but they certainly hit and damaged soft targets, such as long-range radars (Ghadir) and solid fuel production sites. Whatever Iran hit in Israel, it was not significant enough to change Israeli strategic calculus - the killing of Iranian commanders did not stop, nor did it alter or degrade their military capabilities i.e their ability to conduct airstrikes, which is their strategic and main asset. And this was after close to 400 missiles were fired in two seperate attacks on airbases. One would think that firing this much missiles on Israel's important airbases would perhaps render them inoperable for atleast some time. But in fact, Israel continued their air campaigns - and in fact escalated them, after both attacks. And it is clear to me that the Israeli campaign in Syria is one of the reasons for the debacle in Syria today. Israeli targeting of Iranian commanders and associated infrastructure was always bound to weaken the logistical network that Iran spent years creating. I will refer you to my first point regarding my personal belief that Hezbollah wants this war ended. I believe this question will be answered in due time, when the ceasefire expires. And if I am proven correct, I don't believe you can claim any "win" on Hezbollah's part other than the fact it survived. Brother, in 2006, Israel achieved barely anything militarily. This time, the Israelis clearly stated their objective was to delink Hezbollah from Gaza. If the ceasefire holds, then they would have succeeded in doing that. There is no shame in admitting this. This would also mean that the Northern settlers would be able to return. It would also literally mean, Gaza was "left alone". Something that was promised not to happen. Absolutely, the weakening of Iran. You don't believe the countless aistrikes in Syria contributed to Iran's weakening logistically in Syria, which subsequently weakened Syria's ability to defend itself against the rebels? Do you think this offensive would have succeded in the way it has, had Iran and its allies not fought against Israel? No, they would still have enough power to back the Syrian Government and defeat the offensive. The rebels saw an opening and took the opportunity. Some of them have admitted this publicly. They knew the Syrian Army without Iran (and its allies), and Russia, will not hold. I'm glad you agree here. Also? if this happens, then Hezbollah would have no choice but to end the war with Israel, even if I were to take your previous point that there was some will to fight left in the first place. An Israeli victory in Syria would mean an Israeli victory since October 7. Literally the only card left for the Hamas would be the hostages. Yes that is correct, but brother, how many people believe our own propaganda? How we are basically undefeatable? I know of many like this. As soon as you say the enemy does something better than you, or the leaders of the resistance are making a mistake, you are seen as a traitor. This zealotry is seen all across our communities. It's always "trust the resistance leaders". Sometimes you should trust the critics. The US and the West do one thing right in my opinion: they criticise themselves publicly. Every year the Pentagon releases reports critical of certain aspects of the US military. Where they should improve. What went wrong in previous battles. Congress debates it. The public and the media are allowed to criticise. Those who failed can be voted out. In our circles such a thing would be viewed as demoralising or traitor-like behaviour. You are giving the "enemy" our "battle secrets" would be said. Unfortunately there's too many of them to ignore. Thank you for the response and discussion brother.

If you want this thread to solely discuss the events in Syria, then as you wish brother. I shall comment no more regarding Gaza and Lebanon on this thread. I am also happy to be proven wrong or to see things from another perspective. May Allah bless you.

I agree with brother @Jaabir in that the lack of "Shi'a-Centrism" in our geopolitics is to blame for our losses. While I do believe that helping all suffering Muslims is ideal and praiseworthy, we ought to not place the plight of others in a status where they are above or equal to ourselves. The news regarding the suffering that our brothers & sisters go through in places like Afghanistan & Pakistan is sickening. It is even worse that they are neglected, hardly ever discussed, and certainly not supported during their struggles. The Shi'a should always be the priority. Those who claim the war in South Lebanon was a victory are simply coping and unable to admit to reality. The attempt to present anything as a victory is a sign of desperation, and a reminiscent of the failing Arab armies during the Arab-Israeli wars of the past. The Zionists said that their aim was to delink Gaza from Lebanon. Hezbollah said they would fight the Zionists as a support front in order to pressure Israel to submit to a ceasefire. Gaza has been destroyed and is still under bombardment. Israel completely destroyed South Lebanon and killed most of Hezbollah's Leaders and Commanders. It is also very likely that alot of Hezbollah's rocket stockpile was either used or destroyed, as is normal in a war against an opponent with air superiority. All Hezbollah achieved was it showed that it has the ability to damage Israeli border towns, and hit Israeli cities with drones and missiles. Something Israel and the world already knew anyway. Visual damage in Israel is relatively minimal - certainly compared to South Lebanon. Israel was also able to kill some of Iran's most senior commanders with hardly any damage recieved in retaliation. What does this tell you? Israel is not deterred. It was not "defeated". It achieved its objective that it announced prior to the pager operation, which was 1) de-link Gaza and South Lebanon/Hezbollah 2) return the Northern Settlers home. Now, did it achieve ultimate victory, as in "destroying" Hezbollah? No it did not achieve that. But how does this prove that Hezbollah's sacrifices - of thousands of martyrs - was "worth it"? Hezbollah did not achieve any of its stated goals and objectives since it joined the war in support of Gaza. All it did was "survive". And what happened subsequently - the weakening of Hezbollah and Iran generally, as a result of the Gaza War - is obviously being exploited by Turkey and its rebels to fulfill their ultimate goal in Syria. The Shi'a in Syria will suffer greatly if this offensive remains as hot as it is, in addition to our Holy Shrines being in grave danger. And if the regime in Damascus does fall and Iran's route to Hezbollah is compromised, then yes, Israel has just achieved a geopolitical victory of the ages. The believers should be honest with themselves. Learn from your mistakes and do not paint everything as a victory. Be open about where you have failed. One thing I wish we learned from our enemies, especially the US, is when they train their troops or simulate wargames, they make it so the enemy is incredibly strong, perhaps much stronger than the enemy really is or stronger than even themselves. This is why the US Military regularly loses in war game simulations. They try their best not to underestimate their enemy. And what happens when the US or the West (including Israel) fail? Instant self-criticism and internal debates. They don't try and sugarcoat their failures. They try and learn from their mistakes. You don't think in Israel there won't be a critical investigation into the failures of their military and intelligence when it came to October 7? There will be for sure. Just as there was following the 2006 War. And after the 1973 War. Unfortunately in our Shi'i political circles all you see is positivism and talks of how in mere minutes we can wipe our enemies out. Even right now, some are people have convinced themselves that what is happening is in Syria is some sort of 4D master plan. It is not haram to be critical or to mention how tough your enemy is. It is stupid to belittle the other side and convince yourself your much superior - even if you actually are, let alone if you aren't. This is not a video game. This is war. May Allah grant us patience and foresight.

Do not tell anyone else and tell your friend to stop talking about people behind their back. If you do break it, then just repent to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

How is it a Wahabbi narrative when Grozny was completed destroyed? How is a Wahabbi narrative when Russia fired inaccurated ballistic missiles and fired artillery shells into Grozny, which no doubt led to civilian casualties? You don't believe there was thousands of Muslims who were injured or killed as they were caught in the crossfire of a brutal assault that left a city in ruins? And do you buy the "NATO narrative" on Bosnia/Serbia? If yes, why? If no, why did many of our Shi'a brothers fight alongside the Bosnians and were rightfully praised for doing so - despite Salafi/Wahabbi presence among the Bosnians, including Al-Qaeda and Saudi funded groups, all the while NATO was destroying Serbian positions from the air? How can some believers heap praise on Russia and China, whose Governments under Putin and Xi actually placed sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, and joined the US and the West in condemning Iran at UNSC (Resolution 1929) and placed the Iranian Nuclear Program under Chapter 7 of the UN? Some "allies" they are. How can some believes take Putin as an "ally" despite Putin and Russia's great relationship with Netanyahu and Israel during the 90s and 00s, where they heaped praise on eachother, called eachother "friends" (as Ariel Sharon referred to Putin), while Putin called Israel a "special state" to Russia - these are only some examples of both sides heaping praise on eachother. One only needs to Google the official statements from Israel and Russia after a diplomatic meeting and you will see the most flowery language when describing eachother - with the exception of the recent times (post-Ukraine). How is the CCP not a killer of Muslims when the CCP was the chief backer of the Burmese Government, whose Security Forces alongside Buddhist extremists carried out massacres on the Muslim Rohingya in Myanmar? (Some called it a genocide). How is the CCP not an oppressor of the Muslims despite the animosity communism has towards religion? In my previous post, I shared a link from the mouthpiece of the CCP, where their officials openly state that Muslims cannot fast in Ramadan if they are teachers or public servants. State atheism is never an ally. How can you call them an "ally", when Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said not to take Jews and Christians as "awliyaa"? No one is an ally of a believer but a believer. The kafir can be a cooperative of the believer based on the interests of the believer. But he can never be an "ally", even if he gave us 99% of what we wanted. For example, in Afghanistan, Iran famously assisted the Americans in toppling the Taliban/Al-Qaeda regime. After the fall of the Taliban, many of our Shi'a brothers aligned themselves with the pro-US Afghan Government, as they feared a Taliban resurgence which would oppress the Shi'a, as we see today in Afghanistan. Many Shi'a took a supportive or neutral stance to the US removing Saddam (la). This does not make them allies in the slightest. My point is, do not elevate their status. Openly point out their misdeeds and hypocrisy. And never consider them an ally.

@AbdusSibtayn Salam Alaykum brother, Why should believers put any faith in kafir Muslim-killing oppressors such as Putin and Xi? No matter how much they help you, the kuffar have their own agenda and you should always be suspicious of them. Even if they have the same interests as you, that doesn't mean they share the same conviction as you. There's no reason to get emotional over their lack of support, all that believers require is trust in Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and to have faith in Him. Assad's Syria nearly fell in 2015 and was in a much worse position before Russia intervened. The Russia of today is much weaker than the Russia of yesterday, embroiled in a costly, long and fairly pointless war with its own neighbour. China has never been militarily influential globally, the most it has done is engage in limited regional conflict. It is too busy surveilling its own citzens and making sure atheistic communism is shored up at home. This is the sort of garbage the CCP is focused on, from their own very mouthpiece: https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/868638.shtml Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said: Believers! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies. They are the allies of each other. And among you he who takes them for allies, shall be regarded as one of them. [5:51] This does not mean you can't co-operate with them, but no kafir is truly an ally of a believer. I have realised that sometimes geopolitics has blinded the believers into considering certain world leaders as "good" for certain stances or positions they have taken. Never forget that sugarcoating, minimising or even supporting the oppressors is dangerous according to our creed. Our narrations are clear that whoever is pleased with the actions of a person, then he shares that deed. Geopolitics has a place in our religion, but don't let it guide your religion. Let your religion guide your view on geopolitics. And that's my 2 cents.

It is clear that the meaning is that the Imam (عليه السلام) will bring about the purified version of Islam, which his grandfather (saww) initially brought forth. This Islam will be purified from innovations and incorrect rulings and practices. It is an Islam which will present the true ahkaam not the ahkaam of ijtihad, which may be correct or incorrect. And most importantly this Islam will actually correct the beliefs of the people which are mostly astray. The people will fight because they wish to maintain their innovative ways and beliefs, and this is why the Imam (عليه السلام) will fight them. The hadiths are clear that the halal and haram of Muhammad (saww) is till the end of time. And that everything is in the Qur'an and Sunnah. But what may be different is some hadiths mention the Imam (عليه السلام) may judge people by the baatin (not requiring witnesses), and obviously with the presence of the Imam (عليه السلام) certain actions become wajib like praying on Eid or Jumu'ah behind him. Some narrations mention he will fight those who don't give zakat to him. This is not a new religion, as he is not a Messenger. This is simply a revival of the religion of Islam.

There is a discussion to be had whether the words in 18:80 are the direct speech of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or His creation - such as Al-Khidr (عليه السلام) - because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) does not "fear" per se. So it may be true that the plural "We" does not always refer to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) alone, but the context of the Verse should help us understand who is the speaker.

One of the most interesting things I find in modern history was the ability of states in WW1 and WW2 to mobilize their societies for war. What the US and USSR both did in WW2 was nothing short of marvelous, and the same to a certain degree with regards to Germany, Japan, Britain and others. I'm not sure if modern countries are capable of that given the profit motive in international relations and the complexity of supply chains, where you have adversaries purchase material and product from eachother which is crucial to their own capabilities, designed with the intention of destroying eachother. I believe this thread sheds a good light on this, regardless of who wins or loses in Ukraine.

edit

Okay, I understand what you are saying now. Thank you brother.

I'm not sure what you are saying brother, are you saying the evidence is conclusive or inconclusive?

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you brother. What is quoted in there should be enough for this topic.

That isn't true and that is a weak and late opinion. الشيخ المفيد قدس سره في أجوبة المسائل العكبرية (المسألة الخمسين) ، ص 120 في جواب سؤال حول زينب ورقية ، هل هما ابنتا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أو ربيبتاه ، فأجاب قدس سره بقوله : والجواب أن زينب ورقية كانتا ابنتي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله ، والمخالف لذلك شاذ بخلافه This is just one example and this is from Al-Mufid (rah), and here he states that the Prophet (saww) had four daughters and whoever says otherwise, such as that they were adopted, is espousing a shadh opinion. It is up to you what you wish to believe, but this is the view of many of our scholars, and the view of the Ambassador of the Imam (عليه السلام) as narrated by Al-Ghayba by Al-Tusi (rah).

Because she is his greatest daughter, and her preference over this others is explained in this tradition which was authentically narrated from the ambassador of the Imam of our time (عليه السلام). And one of the theologians asked him (i.e. Shaykh al-Hasan b. Ruh رضي الله عنه) – and he is known by Tirk al-Harawi(?) – so he said to him: How many daughters did the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم have? So he said: Four. He said: So which of them is preferred? So he said: Fatima. So he said: And why did she become preferred while she was the youngest of them in age and the one from them to spend the least amount of time in the company of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم?! He said: For having two special traits, which Allah characterized her by, favouring her and conferring her honour and respect. One of them is that she inherited from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, and none other than her inherited from his children; and the other is that Allah maintained the progeny of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم from her and it did not remain from other than her. And He did not qualify her with that except due to the virtue of sincerity which He had distinguished of her intention. al-Harawi said: And I have not seen a person speak and answer regarding this subject by [anything] better nor more concise [to the point] than his answer. (Tusi’s Ghayba) (sahih) (صحيح) Like I said, the opinion that the Prophet (saww) had multiple daughters was mentioned by Al-Mufid (rah), Al-Tusi (rah), Al-Murtadha (rah), and modern scholars aswell. And the words of the Ambassador of the Imam (عليه السلام) should be enough.

Sorry this is what I meant. That the Prophet having multiple daughters is a "Sunni" belief. This is nonsense. Shi'i scholars from the beginning have mentioned him having multiple daughters.

That the Prophet (saww) only had one daughter is not a "Shi'i" belief, it is a belief of many, if not most, of our Shi'i scholarship based on strong proof, the strongest being that we have an authentic chain to the ambassador of Imam Al-Mahdi (عليه السلام) claiming such. A commonly held Shi'i belief is not that which is commonly chanted in the pulpits, you need to look at the books of our scholars to know what they actually said or didn't say.

You probably know more than me so I won't argue your point. But here is some footage of aircraft engagements vis-a-vis drones and cruise missiles: The US Military hasn't released footage but this is what they claimed: (take it with a grain of salt as you said)

The way Israel and its allies countered the drone swarm threat was by using fighter jets to knock them out, reserving actual anti-missile defenses to engage with incoming missile threats. We now have videos of Israeli F15s/35s destroying Iranian drones and cruise missiles. Arrow 2/3 are designed mainly for medium and intermediate range ballistic missile threats, and they are very capable systems at that. David's Sling and Patriot systems are mostly used in Israel to defend against short range ballistic missiles threats, cruise missiles and certain drone threats. Iron Dome is designed to deal with rockets but has some anti cruise missile and anti drone capability. Israel also has other capable naval air defense systems that they probably employed against Yemeni and perhaps Iraqi threats. The way we will know the truth of the scale of damage is when high defenition satellite imagery is revealed, but it is clear that Iranian ballistic missiles did hit strategic targets. What we can conclude is that Iran has the capability of penetrating probably the most dense and layered air defense system in the world, and did that with days in advance of Israel and its allies knowing of a coming attack, with the US and other Western countries and regional Governments like Jordan readying up to assist Israel in identifying and intercepting threats. It is said the USAF was engaging the bulk of the drones before they made it close to Israel. It is fair to point out that systems Israel deploys are incredibly expensive, especially in comparison to the threats Iran employs. The systems the US Navy employed are even more expensive. So on the assymetric front, Iran is a clear winner. In a total war scenario, this sort of engagement would probably be much different, as it would be harder to engage with thousands of ballistic missiles, drones, and other aerial threats from Iran and its allies. The capability of the US in saving Israel would also be very limited in such a scenario, but Israel is also capable of retaliatory strikes of its own - but it remains to be seen (hopefully this never happens) whether Israel can actually sustain an aerial campaign against Iran knowing the difficulty of distance and also Iran having capable air defenses of its own. Israel probably concedes that in any total war scenario with Iran, the USAF has to do the bulk of the work, and it is clear Biden is uninterested in a war against Iran, knowing how much damage that would do to both regional US bases and to the regional/global economy as a whole. Overall, I think Iran established deterrence in terms of making it clear that attacking Iranian commanders is a clear redline, while Israel can claim to its people that it has dealt with the bulk of the threat last night, and therefore call it a day. It depends on how war-hungry Netanyahu is really, as this might be his opportunity to orchestrate a plan to drag the US into a war on his behalf. This is my personal and humble asssessment of what transpired, and I'm no expert on geopolitics or military matters, so I seek forgiveness for any mistakes.

I would also add that if one's parents are not happy with the way their child dresses around them i.e it causes them to be distressed because they determined it is inappropriate, then it would be haram to dress like that - it would fall under the haram disobedience of one's own parents. So there are secondary factors to consider in such a scenario. Like the brother @Irfani313 said, Islamic Fiqh is more than often just a baseline of halal and haram, but Akhlaq has a wider scope in many aspects. The fatwa I brought forth is just simply the boundaries of halal and haram, and if that is what the O.P is seeking than the fatwa has answered that.