What is the reason for the difference in fatwa between the ruling on a father preventing his son from going out if there is no harm, where the son's disobedience to the father is not considered disobedience to parents (ʿuqūq), and the ruling on a father preventing his daughter from going out for permissible activities, where her disobedience is considered disobedience to parents (ʿuqūq) even if there is no harm to her?

Obedience to parents is obligatory upon children, male and female, in what is good and permissible. So, if a father prevents his child from going out for a valid reason, obedience is obligatory, unless it results in harm. However, if the prevention is without a valid reason, and the child has a need to go out, then prevention is not permissible. This applies to both male and female children. It should be noted that a man's need to go out differs from a woman's need, and the concern for a woman when she goes out is not like the concern for a man. Therefore, preventing a woman might be for her protection and preservation, which is a valid reason. Ignoring the differences between male and female and demanding absolute equality is a deviant path that contradicts Islamic law and natural disposition (fitra).