Islamic Practices vs Cultural Practices
- Thread starter Shak78
- Start date
Ibn Uthaymin
Junior member
sister,
1. al-Bukhaari (4481) narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: “When this verse was revealed, the muhaajir women took their waist wrappers and tore them at the edges, and covered their faces with them.
“and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)”
[al-Noor 24:31]
2. Niqab in Quran and sunnah
ibnfarooq.tripod.com/niqaab.htm
Please explain
Niqab is not obligatory, so forcing someone is pretty outrageous.
The evidence you showed was about Niqab being obligatory. It doesnt say force anywhere Indian bro. Your just making things up.
Are you a misogynist?
ahmed_indian
to Allah we belong
oh.......not at all. i dont hate women. i love my mother, my sister, all sisters-in-Islam and inshallah my wife-to-be too.
Moonlight_88
New Member
Salam3laykum Ya Ikwan wa Ikwat
MashAllah a great topic being discussed here. I have seen that many people have blurred the boundries of culture and religion, hence its hard for some to distinguish between the two. Culture is soo deply rooted within them that they may not realise and understand the wrong practices that contradict the Quran and Sunnah. Its unfortunate that due to some cultural practices, the ummah is in a big mess!!! We need to revive the teaching of beloved Rasool Mohammad Sallalaho Alaihi Wassalam in our households and in our local community. May Allah keep the ummah united and keep us firm upon the deen. (Ameen).
MashAllah a great topic being discussed here. I have seen that many people have blurred the boundries of culture and religion, hence its hard for some to distinguish between the two. Culture is soo deply rooted within them that they may not realise and understand the wrong practices that contradict the Quran and Sunnah. Its unfortunate that due to some cultural practices, the ummah is in a big mess!!! We need to revive the teaching of beloved Rasool Mohammad Sallalaho Alaihi Wassalam in our households and in our local community. May Allah keep the ummah united and keep us firm upon the deen. (Ameen).
Perseveranze
Junior Member
Asalaamu Alaikum,
Dear Sister, here is a informative website which is dedicated to giving information to Women in Islam - http://www.womeninislam.ws/en/
Dear Sister, here is a informative website which is dedicated to giving information to Women in Islam - http://www.womeninislam.ws/en/
Mairo
Maryama
:salam2:
Thanks brother for the hadith and the link. And also for everyone's input, it is good to have discussion. I am aware of many of the hadiths and quranic verses referenced therin. I personally don't particularly like when there are additional words added in parentheses, as these may or may not represent the original sentiment of the directive. Many of the examples demonstrate what was the response of women to certain things (such as hearing the verse of the Quran recited). But not that they acted in such a way because they were forced.
It is also my understanding that the four major Sunni schools of thought (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali) hold that entire body of the woman, except her face and hands, is part of her awrah. There is also this well known hadith that many obtain guidance from:
•Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: "Asma bint Abu Bakr entered upon the Apostle of Allah while she was wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah turned his attention from her. He said: ‘O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this,’ and he pointed to her face and hands." (Sunnan Abu Dawud 32:4092)
Also some interesting discussion about hijab and some of the scholars views and other hadith to consider here: http://www.muhajabah.com/finalrule.htm
However, I want to also explain that it is not my intention to debate about the issue of covering (in the presence of non-mahrams, in public), whether or not covering the face is required or not, etc, which is a debated topic of opinion by practicing muslims and scholars alike. It is clear that covering in a modest manner is prescribed for both men and women and it is truly a protection, both for the individual(s) and for families and the greater society. Many years before I had even said my shahadah I had read a book by a woman from Saudi Arabia who beautifully explained about what hijab is and is not, which is often a completely foreign concept to someone from the west. The idea of protecting and developing yourself in private and in secret is one that is not well understood in the west where we are taught pretty much the opposite. My response from reading the book was a deep appreciation for hijab and niqab, and that I truly wished everyone followed the code of dressing that was described as it was a truly beautiful explanation - and I wasn't even Muslim at that time! I wish there was more of this kind of discussion and explanation, instead of examples about "forcing" people to conform. That is just not right and not in the spirit of Islam, at all.
People have the choice to do what they want. Yes, it is good to advise brothers and sisters and inspire toward what is good and right. And yes, there can be repercussions/consequences in response to certain actions, and there are prescribed penalties/punishments to bring to justice with respect to actions that overstep the boundaries established by Islam. However, while there may be prescribed penalites for certain actions such as stealing, drinking, killing, adultery, etc, I am not aware of any with respect to failing to meet dress codes for either women or men. If there is such a regulation I would appreciate if someone could share it.
Alhamdulilahi actions are judged by intentions, and Allah is the ultimate judge.
Allahu alam.
Wasalaam
Thanks brother for the hadith and the link. And also for everyone's input, it is good to have discussion. I am aware of many of the hadiths and quranic verses referenced therin. I personally don't particularly like when there are additional words added in parentheses, as these may or may not represent the original sentiment of the directive. Many of the examples demonstrate what was the response of women to certain things (such as hearing the verse of the Quran recited). But not that they acted in such a way because they were forced.
It is also my understanding that the four major Sunni schools of thought (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali) hold that entire body of the woman, except her face and hands, is part of her awrah. There is also this well known hadith that many obtain guidance from:
•Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: "Asma bint Abu Bakr entered upon the Apostle of Allah while she was wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah turned his attention from her. He said: ‘O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this,’ and he pointed to her face and hands." (Sunnan Abu Dawud 32:4092)
Also some interesting discussion about hijab and some of the scholars views and other hadith to consider here: http://www.muhajabah.com/finalrule.htm
However, I want to also explain that it is not my intention to debate about the issue of covering (in the presence of non-mahrams, in public), whether or not covering the face is required or not, etc, which is a debated topic of opinion by practicing muslims and scholars alike. It is clear that covering in a modest manner is prescribed for both men and women and it is truly a protection, both for the individual(s) and for families and the greater society. Many years before I had even said my shahadah I had read a book by a woman from Saudi Arabia who beautifully explained about what hijab is and is not, which is often a completely foreign concept to someone from the west. The idea of protecting and developing yourself in private and in secret is one that is not well understood in the west where we are taught pretty much the opposite. My response from reading the book was a deep appreciation for hijab and niqab, and that I truly wished everyone followed the code of dressing that was described as it was a truly beautiful explanation - and I wasn't even Muslim at that time! I wish there was more of this kind of discussion and explanation, instead of examples about "forcing" people to conform. That is just not right and not in the spirit of Islam, at all.
People have the choice to do what they want. Yes, it is good to advise brothers and sisters and inspire toward what is good and right. And yes, there can be repercussions/consequences in response to certain actions, and there are prescribed penalties/punishments to bring to justice with respect to actions that overstep the boundaries established by Islam. However, while there may be prescribed penalites for certain actions such as stealing, drinking, killing, adultery, etc, I am not aware of any with respect to failing to meet dress codes for either women or men. If there is such a regulation I would appreciate if someone could share it.
Alhamdulilahi actions are judged by intentions, and Allah is the ultimate judge.
Allahu alam.
Wasalaam
Mairo
Maryama
justoneofmillion
Junior Member
:salam2:
Niqab is NOT Required
From the Book Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah
Shaykh Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee
The main errors of those who make the face veil obligatory
1. The interpretation of al-idnaa’ in the verse of the Jilbaab to mean “covering the face”.
This misinterpretation is contrary to the basic meaning of the word in Arabic which is “to come close”, as is mentioned in authoritative dictionaries like al-Mufradaat by the well-known scholar, ar-Raaghib al-Asbahaanee. However, there is sufficient evidence in the interpretation of the leading commentator on the Quran, Ibn ‘Abbaas, who explained the verse saying, “She should bring the jilbaab close to her face without covering it.” It should be noted that none of the narrations used as evidence to contradict this interpretation are authentic.
2. The interpretation of jilbaab as “a garment which covers the face.”
Like the previous misinterpretation, this interpretation has no basis linguistically. It is contrary to the interpretation of the leading scholars, past and present, who define the jilbaab as a garment which women drape over their head scarves (khimaar). Even Shaykh at-Tuwaijree himself narrated this interpretation from Ibn Mas‘ood and other Salafee scholars. Al-Baghawee mentioned it as the correct interpretation in his Tafseer (vol. 3, p. 518) saying, “It is the garment which a woman covers herself with worn above the dress (dir ‘) and the headscarf.” Ibn Hazm also said, “The jilbaab in the Arabic language in which the Messenger of Allaah ((may Peace Be Upon Him)) spoke to us is what covers the whole body and not just a part of it.” (vol. 3, p. 217). Al-Qurtubee declared this correct in his Tafseer and Ibn Katheer said, “It is the cloak worn above the headscarf.” (vol. 3, p. 518)
3. The claim that the khimaar (headscarf) covers the head and the face.
In doing so “the face” has been arbitrarily added to its meaning in order to make the verse:
"Let them drape their headscarves over their busoms"
appear to be in their favor, when, in fact it is not. The word khimaar linguistically means only a head covering. Whenever it is mentioned in general terms, this is what is intended. For example in the hadeeths on wiping (mas-h) on the khimaar and the prophetic statement, “The salaah of a woman past puberty will not be accepted without a khimaar.” This hadeeth confirms the invalidity of their misinterpretation, because not even the extremists themselves – much less the scholars – use it as evidence that the covering of a woman’s face in salaah is a condition for its validity. They only use it as proof for covering the head. Furthermore, their interpretation of the verse of the Qawaa
"to remove their clothing"
to mean “jilbaab” further confirms it. They hold that it is permissible for old women to appear before marriagealbe males in her headscarf with her face exposed. One of their noteable scholars openly stated that. As for Shaykh at-Tuwaijree, he implied it without actually saying it.
After checking the opinions of the early and later scholars in all the specializations, I found that they unanimously hold that the khimaar is a head covering. I have mentioned the names of more than twenty scholars, among them some of the great Imaams and hadeeth scholars. For example, Abul-Waleed al-Baajee (d. 474 AH) who further added in his explanation, “Nothing should be seen of her besides the circle of her face.”
4. The claim of a consensus (Ijmaa‘) on the face being considered ‘awrah.
Shaykh at-Tuwaijree claimed that scholars unanimously held that the woman’s face was ‘awrah and many who have no knowledge, including some Ph.D. holders, have blindly followed him. In fact, it is a false claim, which no one before him has claimed. The books of Hambalite scholars which he learned from, not to mention those of others, contain sufficient proof of its falsehood. I have mentioned many of their statements in Ar-Radd. For example, Ibn Hubayrah al-Hambalee stated in his book, al-Ifsaah, that the face is not considered ‘awrah in the three main schools of Islaamic law and he added, “It is also a narrated position of Imaam Ahmad.” Many Hambalite scholars preferred this narration in their books, like Ibn Qudaamah and others. Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughnee explained the reason for his preference saying, “Because necessity demands that the face be uncovered for buying and selling, and the hands be uncovered for taking and giving.”
Among the Hambalite scholars, is the great Ibn Muflih al-Hambalee about whom Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said, “There is no one under the dome of the sky more knowledgeable about the school of Imaam Ahmad than Ibn Muflih.” And his teacher, Ibn Taymiyyah, once told him, “You aren’t Ibn Muflih, you are Muflih!”
It is incumbent on me to convey Ibn Muflih’s statements for the readers because of the knowledge and many benefits contained in them. Included in them is further confirmation of the falsehood of Shaykh at-Tuwaijree’s claim and support for the correctness of my position on the issue of uncovering the face. Ibn Muflih stated the following in his valuable work al-Aadaab ash-Shar‘iyyah – which is among the references cited by Shaykh at-Tuwaijree (something which indicates that he is aware of it, but has deliberately hidden these crucial facts from his readers while claiming the contrary):
“Is it correct to chastise marriageable women if they uncover their faces in the street?
The answer depends on whether it is compulsory for women to cover their faces or whether it is compulsory for men to lower their gaze from her. There are two positions on this issue.
1.
Regarding the hadeeth of Jareer in which he said, “I asked Allaah’s Messenger about the sudden inadvertent glance and he instructed me to look away.” Al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad commented, “The scholars, May Allaah Most High have mercy on them, have said that there is proof in this hadeeth that it is not compulsory for a woman to cover her face in the street. Instead, it is a recommended sunnah for her to do so and it is compulsory for the man to lower his gaze from her at all times, except for a legislated purpose. Shaykh Muhyud-deen an-Nawawee mentioned that without further explanation.”
2.
Then al-Muflih mentioned Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement which at-Tuwaijree relies on in his book (page 170), while feigning ignorance of the statements of the majority of scholars. Statements like those of al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad and an-Nawawee’s agreement with it.
Then al-Muflih said, “On the basis of that, is chastisement legal? Chastisement is not allowed in issues in where there is a difference of opinion, and the difference has already been mentioned. As regards our opinion and that of a group of Shaafi‘ite scholars and others, looking at a marriageable woman without desire or in a secluded circumstance is permissible. Therefore, chastisement is not proper.”
This answer is in complete agreement with Imaam Ahmad’s statement, “It is not proper that a jurist oblige people to follow his opinion (math-hab).” And this is if the truth were on his side. What of the case where the jurist proudly, dishonestly misleads people and declares other Muslims to be disbelievers as at-Tuwaijree did on page 249 of his book saying,
“… Whoever permits women to expose their faces and uses the proofs of al-Albaanee has flung open the door for women to publicly flaunt their beauty and emboldened them to commit the reprehensible acts done by women who uncover their faces today.” And on page 233 he said, “… and to disbelief in the verses of Allaah.”
Those are his words – May Allaah reform him and guide him. What would he say about Ibn Muflih, an-Nawawee, al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad and other Palestinian scholars, as well as the majority of scholars who preceded them and who are my salaf regarding my opinion on this matter?
5. The agreement of at-Tuwaijree and the extremists with him to explain away the authentic hadeeths which contradict their opinion.
At-Tuwaijree did this with the Khath‘amiyyah hadeeth. They developed a number of comical methods to nullify its implications. I have refuted them all in ar-Radd and one of them in Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah. Some reputable scholars have said that the hadeeth doesn’t contain a clear statement that her face was exposed. This is among the farthest opinions from the truth. For, if her face wasn’t exposed, where did the narrator or the viewer get the idea that she was beautiful? And what was al-Fadl repeatedly looking at? The truth is that this is among the strongest and most clear proofs that a woman’s face is not ‘awrah. In spite of that, there remains a group that insists that she was in ihraam while knowing that her ihraam does not prevent her from draping some of her clothing over her face. At-Tuwaijree does accept sometimes that her face was uncovered but he cancels its implication by saying, “There is no evidence in it that she continuously exposed her face!” He means that the wind must have exposed her face and at that instant al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbaas saw it. Is it possible for an Arab to say that after reading in the hadeeth “al-Fadl began to stare while turning towards her,” and in another narration “… so he began to look at her and her beauty amazed him.” Isn’t this pride with two protruding horns? At other times at-Tuwaijree interprets it as al-Fadl looking at her size and stature.
6. The frequent use of inauthentic hadeeths and unreliable narrations.
For example, the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas about exposing only one eye is commonly used by those who insist that women are obliged to cover their faces in spite of their knowledge of its inauthenticity. In fact, one among them also declared it inauthentic. Perhaps the most important of these unreliable hadeeth commonly used as evidence is the one in which the Prophet is reported to have said, “Are you both blind?” They blindly followed at-Tuwaijree and the others in claiming that this inauthentic narration was strengthened by other supportive narrations and that it was evidence for the prohibition of women from looking at men, even if they are blind. They took this position in spite of the fact that the narration was classified inauthentic by the leading verification experts among the hadeeth scholars like, Imaam Ahmad, al-Bayhaqee and Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr. Al-Qurtubee related that the narration was not considered authentic among the scholars of hadeeth. Consequently, many Palestinian hambalite scholars made their rulings on that basis. Furthermore, that is what the science of hadeeth and its methodology requires as was clearly stated in al-Irwaa. However, in spite of all that evidence to the contrary, Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qaadir as-Sindee had the nerve to go along with Shaykh at-Tuwaijree and others and claim that its chain of narration was authentic. By doing that he exposed himself and his ignorance or feigned ignorance. It is unfortunate that he took this position, because the hadeeth’s chain contains an unknown narrator from whom only one person narrated along with its contradiction to what leading scholars have narrated. Contrary to the level of scholarship that we are used to from Shaykh as-Sindee, he has brought in support of his claim the most amazing things. He arguments unexpectedly contain deception, misguidance, blind following, hiding knowledge and turning away from his own fundamental principles. Among the amazing positions is Shaykh as-Sindee’s feigned ignorance that the narration contradicts the hadeeth of Faatimah bint Qays which contains the Prophet’s permission for her to stay at the home of the blind companion, Ibn Umm al-Maktoom, whom she would be able see. The Prophet gave the reason for that instruction in his statement to her, “For if you take off your head scarf, he won’t see you.” In at-Tabaraanee’s narration from Faatimah, she said, “He instructed me to be at Ibn Umm Maktoom’s home because he couldn’t see me whenever I took my head scarf off.”
There are also a number of other unreliable hadeeths gathered by at-Tuwaijree in his book. I mentioned ten of them in my response, and among them are some fabricated traditions.
7. The classification of some authentic hadeeths and confirmed narrations from the Companions as inauthentic.
The extremists have declared well-established reliable narrations as unreliable and feigned ignorance of strengthening narrations. They have further declared some narrations extremely inauthentic, like the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah concerning the woman who reaches puberty, “Nothing should be seen of her besides her face and hands.” They have persistently declared it inauthentic – the ignorant among them blindly following others devoid of knowledge. In so doing, they contradict those among the leading scholars of hadeeth who strengthen it like al-Bayhaqee and ath-Thahabee. Most of them, including some prominent scholars, feign ignorance of its various chains of narration. In fact, at-Tuwaijree openly stated on page 236 of his book that this statement was only narrated in ‘Aa’ishah’s hadeeth. Even though he has seen with his own eyes on pages 57-9 of my book two other chains: one of which is from Asmaa bint ‘Umays and the other from Qataadah in the abbreviated (mursal) format with an authentic chain of narration. Many of the blind followers followed him, including some female authors as in Hijaabuki ukhtee al-muslimah [Your veil, my sister Muslim], page 33.
They also pretend to be ignorant of the leading hadeeth scholars and others who strengthened it, like al-Munthiree, az-Zayla‘ee, al-‘Asqlaanee and ash-Shawkaanee. Some of those who promote themselves as being among the well versed in this noble science – in their forefront Shaykh as-Sindee – claim that some of its narrations are extremely weak and unreliable in order to escape from the hadeeth science rule that ‘unreliable narrations are strengthened by narrations similar to them’. In doing that, they delude their readers into thinking that no one ruled the weak narrators, like ‘Abdullaah ibn Lahee‘ah, trustworthy and that they cannot be used as supportive evidence. In doing that, they contradict the methodology of the hadeeth scholars in using supportive evidence. Among them is Imaam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyyah – may Allaah have mercy on them. Likewise, they all feign ignorance that the scholars – among them Imaam ash-Shaafi‘ee –confirm the hadeeth mursal if most scholars use it as evidence, as is the case of ‘Aa’ishah’s hadeeth.
Other strengthening factors may be added to the above.
(a) The hadeeth has been narrated by Qataadah from ‘Aa’ishah.
(b) It has been narrated in another chain from Asmaa.
(c) All three narrators of the hadeeth ruled according to it.
1.
Qataadah stated in his interpretation of the verse on draping, “Allaah has placed on them the requirement to cover the eyebrows,” That is, “and not on their faces” as stated by at-Tabaree.
2.
‘Aa’ishah said, regarding the female in ihraam, “She may drape the garment on her face, if she wishes.” This was narrated by al-Bayhaqee in an authentic chain of narrators. There is clear evidence in ‘Aa’ishah’s giving the female pilgrim a choice in draping that in her opinion the face was not ‘awrah. Otherwise she would have made it obligatory on them as those who contradict it do. Because of their position, most of the extremist authors, with at-Tuwaijree in the forefront, hid this statement of Umm al-Mu’mineen, ‘Aa’ishah from their readers. The author of Faslul-khitaab [The Definitive Statement] deliberately deleted this portion of al-Bayhaqee’s narration in his book. This being only one of a number of similar disreputable acts which I have exposed in my book. The supportive evidence is that this authentic narration from her strengthens her hadeeth from the Prophet. This is among the facts that people are unaware of or they pretend ignorance of, either choice is bitter to swallow.
3.
As for Asmaa, it has been authentically reported from Qays ibn Abee Haazim that he saw her as a woman of white complexion with tatoos on her hands.
(d) The narration of Ibn ‘Abbaas earlier mentioned, “She should pull the jilbaab (cloak) close to her face without putting it on her face.” His interpretation of the verse of adornment
"except what appears from it"
as referring to“the face and hands” was similar. There is also a similar narration from Ibn ‘Umar to the same effect.
At this point, a bitter reality must be noted due to the lessons which may be gained from it, the knowledge which it contains and is service as a reminder of the wise saying: “The truth is not know by people, know the truth and you will know people.”
At the same time that Shaykh at-Tuwaijree insists on rejecting the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah and its supporting evidences, among them Qaatadah’s mursal narration, he willingly accepts another inauthentic hadeeth from her with mursal support. In that hadeeth it is mentioned “…that she wore a niqaab (face veil)…” and that she was supposed to have described the Prophet’s wife Safiyyah and the Ansaar women as “… a jewess among jewesses…” which is considered by scholars to be a very erroneous statement (munkar jiddan). The Shaykh argues on page 181, “It has mursal supportive evidence,” and quotes one of the mursal hadeeths of ‘Ataa containing a known liar in its chain of narration.
One should reflect on the great difference between this fabricated supportive evidence and the authentic supportive evidence of Qataadah further supported by other evidences, then ask, “Why did at-Tuwaijree accept the second hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah and not the first?” The obvious answer is that the accepted one contains reference to wearing the niqaab – even though it does not indicate obligation – while the rejected one denies it. Thus, in this regard, the Shaykh did not base his position on Islaamic legal principles, but on something similar to the Jewish principle: The ends justify the means. May Allaah help us.
8. Placing unreasonable conditions
Among the amazing practices of some latter day blind following hanafite scholars and others is that on one hand they agree with us regarding the permissibility of women exposing their faces, because that was the position of their Imaams, but on the other hand they agree with the extremists in opposition to their Imaams. They make ijtihaad (while claiming taqleed) by adding the condition that the society be safe from fitnah to the position of the Imaams. This refers to the fitnah caused by women to men. Then one of the ignorant contemporary blind followers went to the extreme of actually attributing this “condition” to the Imaams themselves. Among some of those having no knowledge, this resulted in their concluding that there is essentially no difference between the position of the Imaams and the extremists.
It is obvious to jurists that this condition is invalid because it implies that humans know something which the Lord missed knowing. That is, the temptation of women did not exist during the time of the Prophet ((may Peace Be Upon Him)) thus we had to create a special ruling for it which did not exist previously. In fact, the fitnah did exist during the era of divine legislation and the story of al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbaas’ trial with the Khath‘amiyyah woman and his repeated looking at her is not far from the readers’ memories.
It is well known that when Allaah Most High instructed men and women to lower their gazes and instructed women to veil themselves in front of men, He did that to block the road to corruption and prevent temptation. In spite of that, He – Most Great and Glorious – did not command that they cover their faces and hands in front of them. The Prophet ((may Peace Be Upon Him)) further emphasized that in the story of al-Fadl by not commanding the woman to cover her face. And Allaah was truthful when He said,
"And your Lord is not forgetful"
The reality is that the condition of there not being fitnah was only mentioned by scholars regarding the man’s looking at the woman’s face, as in al-Fiqh ‘alaa al-mathaahib al-arba‘ah, page 12. They said, “That [the woman’s face may be uncovered] is permissible on condition that there is safety from temptation,” and that is true, contrary to what the blind followers practice. They conclude from it that the woman is obliged to cover her face, when in fact it is not a necessary consequence. They know that the condition of safety from temptation also applies to women. For it is not permissible for them to stare at a man’s face except where there is safety from temptation. Is it then a necessary consequence that men also veil their faces from women to prevent temptation as some tribes called the Tawareg do.
They would have a basis in fiqh of the Quraan and Sunnah if they said that a woman veiled in correct jilbaab who fears being harmed by some corrupt individuals due to her face being exposed is obliged to cover her face to prevent harm and temptation. In fact, it could even be said that it is obligatory on her not to leave her home if she feared that some evil authorities supported by a leader who does not rule by what Allaah revealed, as exists in some Arab countries since a few years ago, would pull her jilbaab from her head. As to making this obligation a compulsory law for all women everywhere and in all eras, even if there did not exist any harm for veiled women, No. Absolutely not. Allaah was truthful when He said,
"Do they have partners who legislated for them in the religion what Allaah did not permit??"
These are the most significant of the extremist opposition’s mistakes which I thought needed brief mention due their strong link to the contents of this book. I then closed ar-Radd al-Mufhim with a reminder that extremism in the religion – considering that the Wise Legislator forbade it will not bring any good. And it is not possible for it to produce a generation of young Muslim women carrying Islaamic knowledge and practice moderately balanced, with neither excesses nor deficiencies. Not like what I have heard about some young female adherents in Arab countries when they heard the Prophet’s statement, “The woman in ihraam should neither wear a niqaab nor gloves,” they did not accept it saying instead, “We will wear our niqaabs and gloves!” No doubt, this was a direct result of the extremist views which they heard regarding the obligation of covering their faces.
I certainly cannot imagine that this type of extremism – and this is only one example from many which I have – can possibly produce for us salafee women able to do everything their religiously guided social life demands of them in a way similar to the righteous women of the Salaf.
Niqab is NOT Required
From the Book Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah
Shaykh Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee
The main errors of those who make the face veil obligatory
1. The interpretation of al-idnaa’ in the verse of the Jilbaab to mean “covering the face”.
This misinterpretation is contrary to the basic meaning of the word in Arabic which is “to come close”, as is mentioned in authoritative dictionaries like al-Mufradaat by the well-known scholar, ar-Raaghib al-Asbahaanee. However, there is sufficient evidence in the interpretation of the leading commentator on the Quran, Ibn ‘Abbaas, who explained the verse saying, “She should bring the jilbaab close to her face without covering it.” It should be noted that none of the narrations used as evidence to contradict this interpretation are authentic.
2. The interpretation of jilbaab as “a garment which covers the face.”
Like the previous misinterpretation, this interpretation has no basis linguistically. It is contrary to the interpretation of the leading scholars, past and present, who define the jilbaab as a garment which women drape over their head scarves (khimaar). Even Shaykh at-Tuwaijree himself narrated this interpretation from Ibn Mas‘ood and other Salafee scholars. Al-Baghawee mentioned it as the correct interpretation in his Tafseer (vol. 3, p. 518) saying, “It is the garment which a woman covers herself with worn above the dress (dir ‘) and the headscarf.” Ibn Hazm also said, “The jilbaab in the Arabic language in which the Messenger of Allaah ((may Peace Be Upon Him)) spoke to us is what covers the whole body and not just a part of it.” (vol. 3, p. 217). Al-Qurtubee declared this correct in his Tafseer and Ibn Katheer said, “It is the cloak worn above the headscarf.” (vol. 3, p. 518)
3. The claim that the khimaar (headscarf) covers the head and the face.
In doing so “the face” has been arbitrarily added to its meaning in order to make the verse:
"Let them drape their headscarves over their busoms"
appear to be in their favor, when, in fact it is not. The word khimaar linguistically means only a head covering. Whenever it is mentioned in general terms, this is what is intended. For example in the hadeeths on wiping (mas-h) on the khimaar and the prophetic statement, “The salaah of a woman past puberty will not be accepted without a khimaar.” This hadeeth confirms the invalidity of their misinterpretation, because not even the extremists themselves – much less the scholars – use it as evidence that the covering of a woman’s face in salaah is a condition for its validity. They only use it as proof for covering the head. Furthermore, their interpretation of the verse of the Qawaa
"to remove their clothing"
to mean “jilbaab” further confirms it. They hold that it is permissible for old women to appear before marriagealbe males in her headscarf with her face exposed. One of their noteable scholars openly stated that. As for Shaykh at-Tuwaijree, he implied it without actually saying it.
After checking the opinions of the early and later scholars in all the specializations, I found that they unanimously hold that the khimaar is a head covering. I have mentioned the names of more than twenty scholars, among them some of the great Imaams and hadeeth scholars. For example, Abul-Waleed al-Baajee (d. 474 AH) who further added in his explanation, “Nothing should be seen of her besides the circle of her face.”
4. The claim of a consensus (Ijmaa‘) on the face being considered ‘awrah.
Shaykh at-Tuwaijree claimed that scholars unanimously held that the woman’s face was ‘awrah and many who have no knowledge, including some Ph.D. holders, have blindly followed him. In fact, it is a false claim, which no one before him has claimed. The books of Hambalite scholars which he learned from, not to mention those of others, contain sufficient proof of its falsehood. I have mentioned many of their statements in Ar-Radd. For example, Ibn Hubayrah al-Hambalee stated in his book, al-Ifsaah, that the face is not considered ‘awrah in the three main schools of Islaamic law and he added, “It is also a narrated position of Imaam Ahmad.” Many Hambalite scholars preferred this narration in their books, like Ibn Qudaamah and others. Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughnee explained the reason for his preference saying, “Because necessity demands that the face be uncovered for buying and selling, and the hands be uncovered for taking and giving.”
Among the Hambalite scholars, is the great Ibn Muflih al-Hambalee about whom Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said, “There is no one under the dome of the sky more knowledgeable about the school of Imaam Ahmad than Ibn Muflih.” And his teacher, Ibn Taymiyyah, once told him, “You aren’t Ibn Muflih, you are Muflih!”
It is incumbent on me to convey Ibn Muflih’s statements for the readers because of the knowledge and many benefits contained in them. Included in them is further confirmation of the falsehood of Shaykh at-Tuwaijree’s claim and support for the correctness of my position on the issue of uncovering the face. Ibn Muflih stated the following in his valuable work al-Aadaab ash-Shar‘iyyah – which is among the references cited by Shaykh at-Tuwaijree (something which indicates that he is aware of it, but has deliberately hidden these crucial facts from his readers while claiming the contrary):
“Is it correct to chastise marriageable women if they uncover their faces in the street?
The answer depends on whether it is compulsory for women to cover their faces or whether it is compulsory for men to lower their gaze from her. There are two positions on this issue.
1.
Regarding the hadeeth of Jareer in which he said, “I asked Allaah’s Messenger about the sudden inadvertent glance and he instructed me to look away.” Al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad commented, “The scholars, May Allaah Most High have mercy on them, have said that there is proof in this hadeeth that it is not compulsory for a woman to cover her face in the street. Instead, it is a recommended sunnah for her to do so and it is compulsory for the man to lower his gaze from her at all times, except for a legislated purpose. Shaykh Muhyud-deen an-Nawawee mentioned that without further explanation.”
2.
Then al-Muflih mentioned Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement which at-Tuwaijree relies on in his book (page 170), while feigning ignorance of the statements of the majority of scholars. Statements like those of al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad and an-Nawawee’s agreement with it.
Then al-Muflih said, “On the basis of that, is chastisement legal? Chastisement is not allowed in issues in where there is a difference of opinion, and the difference has already been mentioned. As regards our opinion and that of a group of Shaafi‘ite scholars and others, looking at a marriageable woman without desire or in a secluded circumstance is permissible. Therefore, chastisement is not proper.”
This answer is in complete agreement with Imaam Ahmad’s statement, “It is not proper that a jurist oblige people to follow his opinion (math-hab).” And this is if the truth were on his side. What of the case where the jurist proudly, dishonestly misleads people and declares other Muslims to be disbelievers as at-Tuwaijree did on page 249 of his book saying,
“… Whoever permits women to expose their faces and uses the proofs of al-Albaanee has flung open the door for women to publicly flaunt their beauty and emboldened them to commit the reprehensible acts done by women who uncover their faces today.” And on page 233 he said, “… and to disbelief in the verses of Allaah.”
Those are his words – May Allaah reform him and guide him. What would he say about Ibn Muflih, an-Nawawee, al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad and other Palestinian scholars, as well as the majority of scholars who preceded them and who are my salaf regarding my opinion on this matter?
5. The agreement of at-Tuwaijree and the extremists with him to explain away the authentic hadeeths which contradict their opinion.
At-Tuwaijree did this with the Khath‘amiyyah hadeeth. They developed a number of comical methods to nullify its implications. I have refuted them all in ar-Radd and one of them in Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah. Some reputable scholars have said that the hadeeth doesn’t contain a clear statement that her face was exposed. This is among the farthest opinions from the truth. For, if her face wasn’t exposed, where did the narrator or the viewer get the idea that she was beautiful? And what was al-Fadl repeatedly looking at? The truth is that this is among the strongest and most clear proofs that a woman’s face is not ‘awrah. In spite of that, there remains a group that insists that she was in ihraam while knowing that her ihraam does not prevent her from draping some of her clothing over her face. At-Tuwaijree does accept sometimes that her face was uncovered but he cancels its implication by saying, “There is no evidence in it that she continuously exposed her face!” He means that the wind must have exposed her face and at that instant al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbaas saw it. Is it possible for an Arab to say that after reading in the hadeeth “al-Fadl began to stare while turning towards her,” and in another narration “… so he began to look at her and her beauty amazed him.” Isn’t this pride with two protruding horns? At other times at-Tuwaijree interprets it as al-Fadl looking at her size and stature.
6. The frequent use of inauthentic hadeeths and unreliable narrations.
For example, the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas about exposing only one eye is commonly used by those who insist that women are obliged to cover their faces in spite of their knowledge of its inauthenticity. In fact, one among them also declared it inauthentic. Perhaps the most important of these unreliable hadeeth commonly used as evidence is the one in which the Prophet is reported to have said, “Are you both blind?” They blindly followed at-Tuwaijree and the others in claiming that this inauthentic narration was strengthened by other supportive narrations and that it was evidence for the prohibition of women from looking at men, even if they are blind. They took this position in spite of the fact that the narration was classified inauthentic by the leading verification experts among the hadeeth scholars like, Imaam Ahmad, al-Bayhaqee and Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr. Al-Qurtubee related that the narration was not considered authentic among the scholars of hadeeth. Consequently, many Palestinian hambalite scholars made their rulings on that basis. Furthermore, that is what the science of hadeeth and its methodology requires as was clearly stated in al-Irwaa. However, in spite of all that evidence to the contrary, Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qaadir as-Sindee had the nerve to go along with Shaykh at-Tuwaijree and others and claim that its chain of narration was authentic. By doing that he exposed himself and his ignorance or feigned ignorance. It is unfortunate that he took this position, because the hadeeth’s chain contains an unknown narrator from whom only one person narrated along with its contradiction to what leading scholars have narrated. Contrary to the level of scholarship that we are used to from Shaykh as-Sindee, he has brought in support of his claim the most amazing things. He arguments unexpectedly contain deception, misguidance, blind following, hiding knowledge and turning away from his own fundamental principles. Among the amazing positions is Shaykh as-Sindee’s feigned ignorance that the narration contradicts the hadeeth of Faatimah bint Qays which contains the Prophet’s permission for her to stay at the home of the blind companion, Ibn Umm al-Maktoom, whom she would be able see. The Prophet gave the reason for that instruction in his statement to her, “For if you take off your head scarf, he won’t see you.” In at-Tabaraanee’s narration from Faatimah, she said, “He instructed me to be at Ibn Umm Maktoom’s home because he couldn’t see me whenever I took my head scarf off.”
There are also a number of other unreliable hadeeths gathered by at-Tuwaijree in his book. I mentioned ten of them in my response, and among them are some fabricated traditions.
7. The classification of some authentic hadeeths and confirmed narrations from the Companions as inauthentic.
The extremists have declared well-established reliable narrations as unreliable and feigned ignorance of strengthening narrations. They have further declared some narrations extremely inauthentic, like the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah concerning the woman who reaches puberty, “Nothing should be seen of her besides her face and hands.” They have persistently declared it inauthentic – the ignorant among them blindly following others devoid of knowledge. In so doing, they contradict those among the leading scholars of hadeeth who strengthen it like al-Bayhaqee and ath-Thahabee. Most of them, including some prominent scholars, feign ignorance of its various chains of narration. In fact, at-Tuwaijree openly stated on page 236 of his book that this statement was only narrated in ‘Aa’ishah’s hadeeth. Even though he has seen with his own eyes on pages 57-9 of my book two other chains: one of which is from Asmaa bint ‘Umays and the other from Qataadah in the abbreviated (mursal) format with an authentic chain of narration. Many of the blind followers followed him, including some female authors as in Hijaabuki ukhtee al-muslimah [Your veil, my sister Muslim], page 33.
They also pretend to be ignorant of the leading hadeeth scholars and others who strengthened it, like al-Munthiree, az-Zayla‘ee, al-‘Asqlaanee and ash-Shawkaanee. Some of those who promote themselves as being among the well versed in this noble science – in their forefront Shaykh as-Sindee – claim that some of its narrations are extremely weak and unreliable in order to escape from the hadeeth science rule that ‘unreliable narrations are strengthened by narrations similar to them’. In doing that, they delude their readers into thinking that no one ruled the weak narrators, like ‘Abdullaah ibn Lahee‘ah, trustworthy and that they cannot be used as supportive evidence. In doing that, they contradict the methodology of the hadeeth scholars in using supportive evidence. Among them is Imaam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyyah – may Allaah have mercy on them. Likewise, they all feign ignorance that the scholars – among them Imaam ash-Shaafi‘ee –confirm the hadeeth mursal if most scholars use it as evidence, as is the case of ‘Aa’ishah’s hadeeth.
Other strengthening factors may be added to the above.
(a) The hadeeth has been narrated by Qataadah from ‘Aa’ishah.
(b) It has been narrated in another chain from Asmaa.
(c) All three narrators of the hadeeth ruled according to it.
1.
Qataadah stated in his interpretation of the verse on draping, “Allaah has placed on them the requirement to cover the eyebrows,” That is, “and not on their faces” as stated by at-Tabaree.
2.
‘Aa’ishah said, regarding the female in ihraam, “She may drape the garment on her face, if she wishes.” This was narrated by al-Bayhaqee in an authentic chain of narrators. There is clear evidence in ‘Aa’ishah’s giving the female pilgrim a choice in draping that in her opinion the face was not ‘awrah. Otherwise she would have made it obligatory on them as those who contradict it do. Because of their position, most of the extremist authors, with at-Tuwaijree in the forefront, hid this statement of Umm al-Mu’mineen, ‘Aa’ishah from their readers. The author of Faslul-khitaab [The Definitive Statement] deliberately deleted this portion of al-Bayhaqee’s narration in his book. This being only one of a number of similar disreputable acts which I have exposed in my book. The supportive evidence is that this authentic narration from her strengthens her hadeeth from the Prophet. This is among the facts that people are unaware of or they pretend ignorance of, either choice is bitter to swallow.
3.
As for Asmaa, it has been authentically reported from Qays ibn Abee Haazim that he saw her as a woman of white complexion with tatoos on her hands.
(d) The narration of Ibn ‘Abbaas earlier mentioned, “She should pull the jilbaab (cloak) close to her face without putting it on her face.” His interpretation of the verse of adornment
"except what appears from it"
as referring to“the face and hands” was similar. There is also a similar narration from Ibn ‘Umar to the same effect.
At this point, a bitter reality must be noted due to the lessons which may be gained from it, the knowledge which it contains and is service as a reminder of the wise saying: “The truth is not know by people, know the truth and you will know people.”
At the same time that Shaykh at-Tuwaijree insists on rejecting the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah and its supporting evidences, among them Qaatadah’s mursal narration, he willingly accepts another inauthentic hadeeth from her with mursal support. In that hadeeth it is mentioned “…that she wore a niqaab (face veil)…” and that she was supposed to have described the Prophet’s wife Safiyyah and the Ansaar women as “… a jewess among jewesses…” which is considered by scholars to be a very erroneous statement (munkar jiddan). The Shaykh argues on page 181, “It has mursal supportive evidence,” and quotes one of the mursal hadeeths of ‘Ataa containing a known liar in its chain of narration.
One should reflect on the great difference between this fabricated supportive evidence and the authentic supportive evidence of Qataadah further supported by other evidences, then ask, “Why did at-Tuwaijree accept the second hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah and not the first?” The obvious answer is that the accepted one contains reference to wearing the niqaab – even though it does not indicate obligation – while the rejected one denies it. Thus, in this regard, the Shaykh did not base his position on Islaamic legal principles, but on something similar to the Jewish principle: The ends justify the means. May Allaah help us.
8. Placing unreasonable conditions
Among the amazing practices of some latter day blind following hanafite scholars and others is that on one hand they agree with us regarding the permissibility of women exposing their faces, because that was the position of their Imaams, but on the other hand they agree with the extremists in opposition to their Imaams. They make ijtihaad (while claiming taqleed) by adding the condition that the society be safe from fitnah to the position of the Imaams. This refers to the fitnah caused by women to men. Then one of the ignorant contemporary blind followers went to the extreme of actually attributing this “condition” to the Imaams themselves. Among some of those having no knowledge, this resulted in their concluding that there is essentially no difference between the position of the Imaams and the extremists.
It is obvious to jurists that this condition is invalid because it implies that humans know something which the Lord missed knowing. That is, the temptation of women did not exist during the time of the Prophet ((may Peace Be Upon Him)) thus we had to create a special ruling for it which did not exist previously. In fact, the fitnah did exist during the era of divine legislation and the story of al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbaas’ trial with the Khath‘amiyyah woman and his repeated looking at her is not far from the readers’ memories.
It is well known that when Allaah Most High instructed men and women to lower their gazes and instructed women to veil themselves in front of men, He did that to block the road to corruption and prevent temptation. In spite of that, He – Most Great and Glorious – did not command that they cover their faces and hands in front of them. The Prophet ((may Peace Be Upon Him)) further emphasized that in the story of al-Fadl by not commanding the woman to cover her face. And Allaah was truthful when He said,
"And your Lord is not forgetful"
The reality is that the condition of there not being fitnah was only mentioned by scholars regarding the man’s looking at the woman’s face, as in al-Fiqh ‘alaa al-mathaahib al-arba‘ah, page 12. They said, “That [the woman’s face may be uncovered] is permissible on condition that there is safety from temptation,” and that is true, contrary to what the blind followers practice. They conclude from it that the woman is obliged to cover her face, when in fact it is not a necessary consequence. They know that the condition of safety from temptation also applies to women. For it is not permissible for them to stare at a man’s face except where there is safety from temptation. Is it then a necessary consequence that men also veil their faces from women to prevent temptation as some tribes called the Tawareg do.
They would have a basis in fiqh of the Quraan and Sunnah if they said that a woman veiled in correct jilbaab who fears being harmed by some corrupt individuals due to her face being exposed is obliged to cover her face to prevent harm and temptation. In fact, it could even be said that it is obligatory on her not to leave her home if she feared that some evil authorities supported by a leader who does not rule by what Allaah revealed, as exists in some Arab countries since a few years ago, would pull her jilbaab from her head. As to making this obligation a compulsory law for all women everywhere and in all eras, even if there did not exist any harm for veiled women, No. Absolutely not. Allaah was truthful when He said,
"Do they have partners who legislated for them in the religion what Allaah did not permit??"
These are the most significant of the extremist opposition’s mistakes which I thought needed brief mention due their strong link to the contents of this book. I then closed ar-Radd al-Mufhim with a reminder that extremism in the religion – considering that the Wise Legislator forbade it will not bring any good. And it is not possible for it to produce a generation of young Muslim women carrying Islaamic knowledge and practice moderately balanced, with neither excesses nor deficiencies. Not like what I have heard about some young female adherents in Arab countries when they heard the Prophet’s statement, “The woman in ihraam should neither wear a niqaab nor gloves,” they did not accept it saying instead, “We will wear our niqaabs and gloves!” No doubt, this was a direct result of the extremist views which they heard regarding the obligation of covering their faces.
I certainly cannot imagine that this type of extremism – and this is only one example from many which I have – can possibly produce for us salafee women able to do everything their religiously guided social life demands of them in a way similar to the righteous women of the Salaf.
Wa 'Alaykum Assalaam.
What you have mentioned are cultural practices and have nothing to do with Islam.
Wearing the veil is part of Islam. Some scholars say it is obligatory and others say it is recommended. It is up to the Muslim lady to decide what she believes and she can't be forced to cover her face.
Beating or torturing a woman because she doesn't wear the veil is not part of Islam because no where does it say in Islam that women who don't cover must be beaten. The men that do this are uneducated. They read the qur'aan and don't even know what is being said and they follow what they think is Islam but it is actually culture.
If a woman is being oppressed in her marriage, then she can seek to end the marriage. Allaah gave her that right and no one else can take that right away from her.
There is a hadeeth that says knowledge is obligatory for every Muslim, be they male or female. Islamic knowledge comes first but then there is nothing wrong with aquiring knowledge that will benefit you in this world.
Hope that cleared things up.
thariq2005
Praise be to Allah!
Assalaamu `alaykkum. Maa shaa'Allaah interesting thread (about the Niqaab atleast). Since one of the opinion has been shown [that Niqaab is not waajib], I think it is crucial to show the other opinion [that Niqaab is waajib]. Yes, there is a differences of opinion as to whether Niqaab is Mustahabb or Waajib from the scholars of the past and the scholars of the present. So it will only do justice if sisters sincerely (with full ikhlaas) research about both sides of the arguement rather than blindly sticking to one opinion and Allaah knows best. Here is what I have got from my notes about the obligation of Niqaab:
Wa `alaykkum salaam wa rahmatullaah, may Allaah have mercy on you [aameen].
Not all the madhabs hold the view that Niqaab is Mustahabb. Imām Ahmad and Imām ash-Shāfi’ī held that it is wājib (obligatory), while Imām Mālik and Imām Abū Hanīfah qualified this and held the view that it is wājib in times of fitnah (trials, tribulations).
Now, a few important points to note here is that there is ijmā’ (concensus) of the scholars:
• It is wājib in times of fitnah.
• It was wājib upon the Prophet’s wives.
• If a woman is beautiful, then it is wājib.
• The least one can say about it is that it is mustahabb (recommended).
It is also important to note that the madh-hab of the Sahābah in general, is that it is wājib.
Also Al-Ghazzaali, Ibn Hajar al `Asqalaani, An-Nawawi, Ibn Taymiyyah and others quoted that it was the practise of all Muslim women throughout Islaamic history (except the last century) to cover their faces from non-mahram men and there is no clear report to prove otherwise. There are only reports that some slave women used to uncover their faces.
As a side note, whenever a person cites something as evidence, then it must meet two conditions:
1) It is authentic.
2) It has to indicate to the particular ruling.
Now those who say that niqāb is not obligatory bring about some proofs:
The first of these is the hadīth reported in the Sunan of Abū Dāwūd, on the authority of ‘Ā-ishah.
Narrated ‘Ā-ishah, Umm al-Mu’minīn: Asmā’, daughter of Abū Bakr, entered upon the Messenger of Allāh wearing thin clothes. The Messenger of Allāh turned his attention from her. He said: “O Asmā’, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this”, and he pointed to her face and hands.
This hadīth meets one of the conditions (i.e. it indicates to the ruling that a woman is allowed to uncover her face). With regards to its authenticity, then it has a number of problems with its chain:
• There is Walīd b. al-Muslim who is mudallis .
• He narrates from Sa’īd b. Bashīr who is classified as weak by many scholars including Imām Ahmad, `Alee ibn al-Madīnī (teacher of Bukhaari), Yahya b. Ma’īn, an-Nasā’ī, Al Haakim, Abu Dawood and others. Furthermore, he was known for narrating munkar reports on Qatādah (remember the chain of this hadeeth has Qataadah in it) as mentioned by Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Numayr, Zakariya ibn Yahya As-Saajee. He also mentioned: "His hadeeth is to be rejected and he does not amount to anything" and Ibn Hajar also said something similar.
• He narrates from Qatādah, who was known for a great memory, but would also sometimes do tadlīs.
• Sa’īd b. Bashīr is the only person to narrate from Qatādah, who had many students narrating thousands from him, such as Shu’bah b. al-Hajjāj, Sa’īd b. Abī ‘Arūba, Hammām b. Yahya.
• He narrates from Khālid b. Durayk, who is the only person to narrate on the authority of ‘Ā-ishah, who herself had many students, the likes of ‘Urwah b. Zubayr, Muhammad b. Qāsim.
• Khālid b. Durayk did not hear from ‘Ā-ishah, as mentioned by Abū Dāwūd and Abū Hātim.
• Khālid b. Durayk is not known for reporting narrations – they only amount to roughly five.
Some scholars mention that these are the seven problems which break the narration from its foundations/routes, and it (this hadeeth) was weakened by a number of scholars including Imām Ahmad and Abū Dāwūd. Also majority of the scholars consider its chain to be VERY weak.
The second narration that they use to support their view is that of Ibn `Abbās in Sahῑh Al Bukhāri. The root for the hadῑth is Shu`ayb who narrates from Az-Zuhrῑ who narrates from Sulayman ibn Yassār who narrates from Ibn `Abbās. They quote from this Hadῑth that Ibn `Abbās’s brother al-Fadl was with the Prophet sallAllāhu `alahi wa sallam during the farewell hajj (the Prophet sallAllāhu `alahi wa sallam would stand there and people would come and ask him questions regarding the Hajj). So a lady came to the Prophet sallAllāhu `alahi wa sallam and she came from Al-Khath`ām. Al-Fadl describes her as ‘a radiant lady’. [They cite this as evidence that he looked at her face]
• Only Shu`ayb narrates this addition [that she was radiant and he was amazed by her beauty] from Az-Zuhrῑ, and he has opposed those who are more reliable than him in memory like Imām Mālik who narrates from Az-Zuhrῑ (and the narration is collected by Imām Bukhāri and Muslim), Ibn Jurayj (narrated by Bukhāri and Muslim), `Abdul `Azῑz ibn Salamah (narrated by Bukhāri) and also Shu`ayb himself narrated through another chain in Bukhāri. Thus, some of the scholars mention that this ziyaadah (addition) is shaadh (odd). This is because none of the other narrations (through Mālik, Ibn Jurayj etc.) narrate this addition. All the narrations through different chains (all reported by Bukhāri and Muslim) narrate the same incident, except the narration of Shu`ayb through the first chain, which has this addition.
• However, other scholars who accept this addition, explain this Hadῑth: The lady who came to the Prophet sallAllāhu `alahi wa sallam came to him during the time of Hajj and thus she was in a state of Ihrām. And it is known that a woman in the state of Ihrām should uncover her face and hands (but should cover it with her khimaar or so if there are non-Mahaarim around her, as it was authentically reported on ` Ā’ishah and ‘Asma that they did so during hajj)
• The scholars also explain it as: This hadῑth does not show the approval of the Prophet sallAllāhu `alahi wa sallam, so thus cannot be taken as evidence to uncover the face.
As mentioned before, this hadῑth at the least does not indicate to the specific ruling and thus not fulfilling one of the conditions (in order to take this hadῑth as evidence to uncover the face).
The third narration that is cited as evidence, is that of Jābir. The root is: `Abdul Malik ibn ‘Abi Sulayman who narrates from `Atā, who narrates from Jābir ibn `Abdullaah, who said: “I attended Eid prayers with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He started with the prayer before the khutbah, with no adhaan or iqaamah. Then he stood up, leaning on Bilaal, speaking of fear of Allaah (taqwa) and urging us to obey Him. He preached to the people and reminded them. Then he went over to the women and preached to them and reminded them. Then he said, ‘Give in charity, for you are the majority of the fuel of Hell. A woman with dark cheeks stood up in the midst of the women and said, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He said, ‘Because you complain too much and are ungrateful to your husbands.’ Then they started to give their jewellery in charity, throwing their earrings and rings into Bilaal’s cloak.”
(Narrated by Muslim, 885) [This shows that her face was uncovered]
• Some of the scholars mention that `Abdul Malik ibn ‘Abi Sulayman who narrates from `Atā has opposed someone who is more reliable (more authentic) than him and that is Ibn Jurayj who narrates from `Atā (the same person `Abdul Malik narrates from). Regarding this Imām Ahmed said “`Abdul Malik ibn `Abi Sulayman is from the Thiqaat (reliable in memory, character and religion), however he used to oppose Ibn Juraryj. And Ibn Jurayj is more reliable than him in accordance to us (meaning the scholars of Hadῑth)”
• The hadῑth of Ibn Jurayj (who was opposed by `Abdul Malik) was narrated from `Atā who narrated from Jābir, and this, was reported by both Bukhāri and Muslim. In this narration there was no mention of the ‘dark cheeks’.
• As for those scholars who accepted this narration, then some of them explained this hadῑth that this narration was during the time of `Eid (as mentioned in the narration) and this was during 2nd year A.H, whereas the ayah about Hijaab was revealed in the year 5 or 6 A.H.
• And some others explained this hadῑth stating that the woman was an old woman, and that old women (who are not beautiful, do not wish to get married, and do not beautify themselves) have a concession with regards to covering the face.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the Niqāb being wājib, then the narrations are clearly indicating to that particular ruling and are authentic like the narration in Bukhāri [4481- on the authority of ‘Ā’ishah who said, “When these words were revealed – ‘and to draw their veils all over Juyūbihinna [Soorah Noor: 31]” – the muhaajir women took their izārs (a kind of garment) and tore them from the edges and covered their faces with them.”. Ibn Hajar in his Fathul Bāri explained clearly that they covered their faces.
There is an authentic hadīth in the Sunan of at-Tirmidhi, on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ūd, that the Prophet said, “The (entire) woman is ‘awrah.” This was authenticated by Ibn Hibbān, Ibn Khuzaymah, and al-Albāni said its isnād (chain) is sahīh. This narration gives an asl (origin) which is that the woman needs to cover her entire body.
Furthermore, Allāh says, “O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their outer garments closely round themselves.” [Al-Ahzāb (33):59] In this verse, there is an order, and the qā-idah (principle) in usūl of an order is that any order in the Qur’ān and Sunnah alludes to an obligation, if there is no sārif (remover).
And it is collected in Jāmi’ al-Bayān by Ibn Jarīr at-Tabari, that Ibn ‘Abbās explained this verse by mentioning that it means covering the entire face except one eye.
Also from a rational point of view the `aql (intellect) will be able to appreciate the fact that it is indeed Wājib for the women to cover their faces as Shaykh Ibn `Uthaymeen said that if it is an obligation to NOT stamp the feet (because the women wear anklets and the noise draws attention, thus resulting in fitnah) as Allāh says: “And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. [Soorah Noor: 31]”, then it is most definitely an obligation to cover the face which if uncovered will cause more fitnah than stamping the feet.
And other people of knowledge mention that if it is waajib to cover the shin (which is less beautiful than the face), then it is waajib to cover the face.
Allaah knows best, most of the points mentioned in my post were taken from the words of my teacher (may Allaah preserve him).
Wassalaamu `alaykkum
Wa `alaykkum salaam wa rahmatullaah, may Allaah have mercy on you [aameen].
Not all the madhabs hold the view that Niqaab is Mustahabb. Imām Ahmad and Imām ash-Shāfi’ī held that it is wājib (obligatory), while Imām Mālik and Imām Abū Hanīfah qualified this and held the view that it is wājib in times of fitnah (trials, tribulations).
Now, a few important points to note here is that there is ijmā’ (concensus) of the scholars:
• It is wājib in times of fitnah.
• It was wājib upon the Prophet’s wives.
• If a woman is beautiful, then it is wājib.
• The least one can say about it is that it is mustahabb (recommended).
It is also important to note that the madh-hab of the Sahābah in general, is that it is wājib.
Also Al-Ghazzaali, Ibn Hajar al `Asqalaani, An-Nawawi, Ibn Taymiyyah and others quoted that it was the practise of all Muslim women throughout Islaamic history (except the last century) to cover their faces from non-mahram men and there is no clear report to prove otherwise. There are only reports that some slave women used to uncover their faces.
As a side note, whenever a person cites something as evidence, then it must meet two conditions:
1) It is authentic.
2) It has to indicate to the particular ruling.
Now those who say that niqāb is not obligatory bring about some proofs:
The first of these is the hadīth reported in the Sunan of Abū Dāwūd, on the authority of ‘Ā-ishah.
Narrated ‘Ā-ishah, Umm al-Mu’minīn: Asmā’, daughter of Abū Bakr, entered upon the Messenger of Allāh wearing thin clothes. The Messenger of Allāh turned his attention from her. He said: “O Asmā’, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this”, and he pointed to her face and hands.
This hadīth meets one of the conditions (i.e. it indicates to the ruling that a woman is allowed to uncover her face). With regards to its authenticity, then it has a number of problems with its chain:
• There is Walīd b. al-Muslim who is mudallis .
• He narrates from Sa’īd b. Bashīr who is classified as weak by many scholars including Imām Ahmad, `Alee ibn al-Madīnī (teacher of Bukhaari), Yahya b. Ma’īn, an-Nasā’ī, Al Haakim, Abu Dawood and others. Furthermore, he was known for narrating munkar reports on Qatādah (remember the chain of this hadeeth has Qataadah in it) as mentioned by Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Numayr, Zakariya ibn Yahya As-Saajee. He also mentioned: "His hadeeth is to be rejected and he does not amount to anything" and Ibn Hajar also said something similar.
• He narrates from Qatādah, who was known for a great memory, but would also sometimes do tadlīs.
• Sa’īd b. Bashīr is the only person to narrate from Qatādah, who had many students narrating thousands from him, such as Shu’bah b. al-Hajjāj, Sa’īd b. Abī ‘Arūba, Hammām b. Yahya.
• He narrates from Khālid b. Durayk, who is the only person to narrate on the authority of ‘Ā-ishah, who herself had many students, the likes of ‘Urwah b. Zubayr, Muhammad b. Qāsim.
• Khālid b. Durayk did not hear from ‘Ā-ishah, as mentioned by Abū Dāwūd and Abū Hātim.
• Khālid b. Durayk is not known for reporting narrations – they only amount to roughly five.
Some scholars mention that these are the seven problems which break the narration from its foundations/routes, and it (this hadeeth) was weakened by a number of scholars including Imām Ahmad and Abū Dāwūd. Also majority of the scholars consider its chain to be VERY weak.
The second narration that they use to support their view is that of Ibn `Abbās in Sahῑh Al Bukhāri. The root for the hadῑth is Shu`ayb who narrates from Az-Zuhrῑ who narrates from Sulayman ibn Yassār who narrates from Ibn `Abbās. They quote from this Hadῑth that Ibn `Abbās’s brother al-Fadl was with the Prophet sallAllāhu `alahi wa sallam during the farewell hajj (the Prophet sallAllāhu `alahi wa sallam would stand there and people would come and ask him questions regarding the Hajj). So a lady came to the Prophet sallAllāhu `alahi wa sallam and she came from Al-Khath`ām. Al-Fadl describes her as ‘a radiant lady’. [They cite this as evidence that he looked at her face]
• Only Shu`ayb narrates this addition [that she was radiant and he was amazed by her beauty] from Az-Zuhrῑ, and he has opposed those who are more reliable than him in memory like Imām Mālik who narrates from Az-Zuhrῑ (and the narration is collected by Imām Bukhāri and Muslim), Ibn Jurayj (narrated by Bukhāri and Muslim), `Abdul `Azῑz ibn Salamah (narrated by Bukhāri) and also Shu`ayb himself narrated through another chain in Bukhāri. Thus, some of the scholars mention that this ziyaadah (addition) is shaadh (odd). This is because none of the other narrations (through Mālik, Ibn Jurayj etc.) narrate this addition. All the narrations through different chains (all reported by Bukhāri and Muslim) narrate the same incident, except the narration of Shu`ayb through the first chain, which has this addition.
• However, other scholars who accept this addition, explain this Hadῑth: The lady who came to the Prophet sallAllāhu `alahi wa sallam came to him during the time of Hajj and thus she was in a state of Ihrām. And it is known that a woman in the state of Ihrām should uncover her face and hands (but should cover it with her khimaar or so if there are non-Mahaarim around her, as it was authentically reported on ` Ā’ishah and ‘Asma that they did so during hajj)
• The scholars also explain it as: This hadῑth does not show the approval of the Prophet sallAllāhu `alahi wa sallam, so thus cannot be taken as evidence to uncover the face.
As mentioned before, this hadῑth at the least does not indicate to the specific ruling and thus not fulfilling one of the conditions (in order to take this hadῑth as evidence to uncover the face).
The third narration that is cited as evidence, is that of Jābir. The root is: `Abdul Malik ibn ‘Abi Sulayman who narrates from `Atā, who narrates from Jābir ibn `Abdullaah, who said: “I attended Eid prayers with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He started with the prayer before the khutbah, with no adhaan or iqaamah. Then he stood up, leaning on Bilaal, speaking of fear of Allaah (taqwa) and urging us to obey Him. He preached to the people and reminded them. Then he went over to the women and preached to them and reminded them. Then he said, ‘Give in charity, for you are the majority of the fuel of Hell. A woman with dark cheeks stood up in the midst of the women and said, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He said, ‘Because you complain too much and are ungrateful to your husbands.’ Then they started to give their jewellery in charity, throwing their earrings and rings into Bilaal’s cloak.”
(Narrated by Muslim, 885) [This shows that her face was uncovered]
• Some of the scholars mention that `Abdul Malik ibn ‘Abi Sulayman who narrates from `Atā has opposed someone who is more reliable (more authentic) than him and that is Ibn Jurayj who narrates from `Atā (the same person `Abdul Malik narrates from). Regarding this Imām Ahmed said “`Abdul Malik ibn `Abi Sulayman is from the Thiqaat (reliable in memory, character and religion), however he used to oppose Ibn Juraryj. And Ibn Jurayj is more reliable than him in accordance to us (meaning the scholars of Hadῑth)”
• The hadῑth of Ibn Jurayj (who was opposed by `Abdul Malik) was narrated from `Atā who narrated from Jābir, and this, was reported by both Bukhāri and Muslim. In this narration there was no mention of the ‘dark cheeks’.
• As for those scholars who accepted this narration, then some of them explained this hadῑth that this narration was during the time of `Eid (as mentioned in the narration) and this was during 2nd year A.H, whereas the ayah about Hijaab was revealed in the year 5 or 6 A.H.
• And some others explained this hadῑth stating that the woman was an old woman, and that old women (who are not beautiful, do not wish to get married, and do not beautify themselves) have a concession with regards to covering the face.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the Niqāb being wājib, then the narrations are clearly indicating to that particular ruling and are authentic like the narration in Bukhāri [4481- on the authority of ‘Ā’ishah who said, “When these words were revealed – ‘and to draw their veils all over Juyūbihinna [Soorah Noor: 31]” – the muhaajir women took their izārs (a kind of garment) and tore them from the edges and covered their faces with them.”. Ibn Hajar in his Fathul Bāri explained clearly that they covered their faces.
There is an authentic hadīth in the Sunan of at-Tirmidhi, on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ūd, that the Prophet said, “The (entire) woman is ‘awrah.” This was authenticated by Ibn Hibbān, Ibn Khuzaymah, and al-Albāni said its isnād (chain) is sahīh. This narration gives an asl (origin) which is that the woman needs to cover her entire body.
Furthermore, Allāh says, “O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their outer garments closely round themselves.” [Al-Ahzāb (33):59] In this verse, there is an order, and the qā-idah (principle) in usūl of an order is that any order in the Qur’ān and Sunnah alludes to an obligation, if there is no sārif (remover).
And it is collected in Jāmi’ al-Bayān by Ibn Jarīr at-Tabari, that Ibn ‘Abbās explained this verse by mentioning that it means covering the entire face except one eye.
Also from a rational point of view the `aql (intellect) will be able to appreciate the fact that it is indeed Wājib for the women to cover their faces as Shaykh Ibn `Uthaymeen said that if it is an obligation to NOT stamp the feet (because the women wear anklets and the noise draws attention, thus resulting in fitnah) as Allāh says: “And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. [Soorah Noor: 31]”, then it is most definitely an obligation to cover the face which if uncovered will cause more fitnah than stamping the feet.
And other people of knowledge mention that if it is waajib to cover the shin (which is less beautiful than the face), then it is waajib to cover the face.
Allaah knows best, most of the points mentioned in my post were taken from the words of my teacher (may Allaah preserve him).
Wassalaamu `alaykkum
Mairo
Maryama
:ma:
Apologies to the original thread starter as we may have gone off track a bit.
But it is really great to be able to share knowledge and information with one another and learn from each other in our different points of view. May Allah guide us all and make us strong in our deen.
Thank you so much for the kind words - and sincerely wishing the same for you
Apologies to the original thread starter as we may have gone off track a bit.
But it is really great to be able to share knowledge and information with one another and learn from each other in our different points of view. May Allah guide us all and make us strong in our deen.Thank you so much for the kind words - and sincerely wishing the same for you
justoneofmillion
Junior Member
:salam2:Alhamdulillah there is Allah s mercy and forgiveness between the differences of these scholars for us.I did not post the other view because it only serves to confuse people.And then give the perception that the whole spiritual journey of a Muslima resides in this Hijaab issue which is quite reductive , false and irritating to say the least.
Narrated ‘Amr bin Al-’Aas (radiallahu ‘anhu): That he heard Allah’s Messenger (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) saying, “If a judge (aka mujtahid) gives a verdict according to the best of his knowledge and his verdict is correct (i.e. agrees with Allah and His Messenger’s verdict) he will receive a double reward, and if he gives a verdict according to the best of his knowledge and his verdict is wrong, (i.e. against that of Allah and His Apostle) even then he will get a reward .” [Saheeh Bukhari: volume 9, book 2, #450, and Saheeh Muslim: book 18, #4261]
I believe what the scholars of the past have said is more relevant for an educational than a pratical purpose today especially in matters of ikhtilaf.
I respect great scholars like Sheikh ibn utahyimeen rahimahu llah , but i don t think we have developed the proper institutions and environments as an ummah with more than a billion and a half shattered in all parts of the world to be able to give these sisters a proper space of fulfillment and ease in our respective communities .It would be really hard to give a practical basis for the fulfillment of this opinion nowadays.
I don t think we have the proper infrastructures to offer them an active role in our communities and in our various societies as a whole to be productive members just like the women of the sahabas were .Therefore if not contextualized such a stance would simply add to more confusion and create a race of puritanism and finger pointing.It creates barriers and exclusions.
We are social beings god made us this way. The prophets time sallallahu aleihi wassalaam they were en grouped in one community of people living basically in the same area,knowing each other and interacting daily with each other, the sharia was applied in all aspects of life. Muslims were in control of the social,educational and legal system that governed them.Today....i won t even go there it would take long.
The conclusion of Sheikh Al Albani rahimahou llah seems the most reasonable and most up to date to me.Otherwise let s just bury them alive ..it is just too much am sorry i have no understanding for this mental oppression that makes it a Fard without taking into account the psychological athmosphere that may vary from country to another.However this engages only me,and i don t intend to force my position on anybody .It can not be possible that a sister can read a fatwa through the internet or in some book made by a sheikh living thousands of kilometers away from were she is and in a completely different social and environemental context ,and comes to the conclusion that it is a fard to wear niquab.Ignoring completely that it is : one a matter of ikhtilaf,second that she might actually have more people looking at her than the contrary.I mean if discretion and humility was intended ...depending of the geographical context what i see today in Europe is that it produces completely the opposite and makes it appear more catchy than anything else.The prophet always choose the easy path between two options given that the other was not prohibited.
"I certainly cannot imagine that this type of extremism – and this is only one example from many which I have – can possibly produce for us salafee women able to do everything their religiously guided social life demands of them in a way similar to the righteous women of the Salaf".Sheikh Nassr ad deen al Albani Quoted from above.
'Allah desires ease for you, and desires not hardship' ( Quraan2:185);
'He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion' ( Quraan22: 78).
'We have made you a nation justly balanced( Quraan 2:143)
If the reason for making such rulings incumbent is Fitna than the niqab may actually cause more fitna than assumed.We live in a globalized village where women are sold in their sexuality,in their nakedness and object roles.The more this goes on the more "men" are even turning to be homos just for a change.I don t believe that going to the other extremes would serve as a healthy psychological antithesis to that trend.It would actually just confirm it in my view by holding a parallel vision ,without rejecting the main idea behind it.In other words you are a sexual object no matter what. There is a more reasonable solution "Hijab"for the man and for the woman.In the end it is the sisters decision to put niquab or not nobody can impose anything on her,we should have her back whatever she does. wa llahu aalam.
Narrated ‘Amr bin Al-’Aas (radiallahu ‘anhu): That he heard Allah’s Messenger (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) saying, “If a judge (aka mujtahid) gives a verdict according to the best of his knowledge and his verdict is correct (i.e. agrees with Allah and His Messenger’s verdict) he will receive a double reward, and if he gives a verdict according to the best of his knowledge and his verdict is wrong, (i.e. against that of Allah and His Apostle) even then he will get a reward .” [Saheeh Bukhari: volume 9, book 2, #450, and Saheeh Muslim: book 18, #4261]
I believe what the scholars of the past have said is more relevant for an educational than a pratical purpose today especially in matters of ikhtilaf.
I respect great scholars like Sheikh ibn utahyimeen rahimahu llah , but i don t think we have developed the proper institutions and environments as an ummah with more than a billion and a half shattered in all parts of the world to be able to give these sisters a proper space of fulfillment and ease in our respective communities .It would be really hard to give a practical basis for the fulfillment of this opinion nowadays.
I don t think we have the proper infrastructures to offer them an active role in our communities and in our various societies as a whole to be productive members just like the women of the sahabas were .Therefore if not contextualized such a stance would simply add to more confusion and create a race of puritanism and finger pointing.It creates barriers and exclusions.
We are social beings god made us this way. The prophets time sallallahu aleihi wassalaam they were en grouped in one community of people living basically in the same area,knowing each other and interacting daily with each other, the sharia was applied in all aspects of life. Muslims were in control of the social,educational and legal system that governed them.Today....i won t even go there it would take long.
The conclusion of Sheikh Al Albani rahimahou llah seems the most reasonable and most up to date to me.Otherwise let s just bury them alive ..it is just too much am sorry i have no understanding for this mental oppression that makes it a Fard without taking into account the psychological athmosphere that may vary from country to another.However this engages only me,and i don t intend to force my position on anybody .It can not be possible that a sister can read a fatwa through the internet or in some book made by a sheikh living thousands of kilometers away from were she is and in a completely different social and environemental context ,and comes to the conclusion that it is a fard to wear niquab.Ignoring completely that it is : one a matter of ikhtilaf,second that she might actually have more people looking at her than the contrary.I mean if discretion and humility was intended ...depending of the geographical context what i see today in Europe is that it produces completely the opposite and makes it appear more catchy than anything else.The prophet always choose the easy path between two options given that the other was not prohibited.
"I certainly cannot imagine that this type of extremism – and this is only one example from many which I have – can possibly produce for us salafee women able to do everything their religiously guided social life demands of them in a way similar to the righteous women of the Salaf".Sheikh Nassr ad deen al Albani Quoted from above.
'Allah desires ease for you, and desires not hardship' ( Quraan2:185);
'He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion' ( Quraan22: 78).
'We have made you a nation justly balanced( Quraan 2:143)
If the reason for making such rulings incumbent is Fitna than the niqab may actually cause more fitna than assumed.We live in a globalized village where women are sold in their sexuality,in their nakedness and object roles.The more this goes on the more "men" are even turning to be homos just for a change.I don t believe that going to the other extremes would serve as a healthy psychological antithesis to that trend.It would actually just confirm it in my view by holding a parallel vision ,without rejecting the main idea behind it.In other words you are a sexual object no matter what. There is a more reasonable solution "Hijab"for the man and for the woman.In the end it is the sisters decision to put niquab or not nobody can impose anything on her,we should have her back whatever she does. wa llahu aalam.
Assalaam walaikum,
In essence: it is the intention of the heart..that leads the way...I could be confined to a home..walk behind my husband..be in niaqab..and if my heart is not in it..of what consequence is it...it's all about the heart.
My faith resides in my heart.
For my sistes in niaqab..may the blessings of Allah pour upon you.
For my sisters in hijab...may the blessings of Allah pour upon you.
For my sisters in faith...may the blessings of Allah pour upon you.
In essence: it is the intention of the heart..that leads the way...I could be confined to a home..walk behind my husband..be in niaqab..and if my heart is not in it..of what consequence is it...it's all about the heart.
My faith resides in my heart.
For my sistes in niaqab..may the blessings of Allah pour upon you.
For my sisters in hijab...may the blessings of Allah pour upon you.
For my sisters in faith...may the blessings of Allah pour upon you.
Ibn Uthaymin
Junior member
oh.......not at all. i dont hate women. i love my mother, my sister, all sisters-in-Islam and inshallah my wife-to-be too.
Thats good man
Mairo
Maryama
I really appreciate your thoughtful response, akhi. I'm grateful there are people in the world like you. Keep up the good work!