Some Muslims are calling for the abolition of male guardianship over women in Saudi Arabia, branding it 'discriminatory and outdated'.

Answer

The article is stinking kufr, hence is not reproduced. Besides the kufr call for the abolition of male guardianship, Islam itself has been abolished by the rubbish Saudi kufr regime wallowing in fisq, fujoor and kufr.

There is no need to comment on the kufr article. We are living in South Africa where the law negates guardianship of the man over the woman. This is the kufr position in every country of the world. Besides this one act of kufr, there are thousands of other acts, practices and beliefs of kufr aired by the agents of shaitaan. It is futile, for example, to comment on the belief of Hindu idol worship. Everyone knows it. If Mr.Ramaphosa declares the abolition of male guardianship over women, which is integral to the religion of his forefathers, then we have no comment. It will be futile to comment. But, when Mufti Taqi claims that digital pictures are not pictures hence not haraam, then we comment and say that he is a mudhiel. Commenting on futility is laghw about which the Qur'aan says: "They (the Muttaqeen) turn away from futility."

However, if a molvi claims that according to Islam idolatry is permissible, then it will be necessary to comment. If for example, the Isipingo Darul Uloom issues a fatwa that male guardianship must be abolished, then there will be a need to comment. But, when a confirmed kaafir such as the Iblees who wrote the kufr article makes this statement, then it is not only futile, but stupid to comment.