Taking off the Hijab
-
Maybe this is interesting for some in regards to the original subject. peace
Portrait Emel Abidin-Algan
Faith without the Headscarf
http//www.qantara.de/files/549/58/453e3155c6f7c_Emel_Abidin-Algan.jpg
She's ugly compared to you, of course she doesn't have to cover her head.
-
I agree. It is very interesting that early scholars had different views on the subject and some even said a slave woman can pray bare-breasted. But you rarely hear about that; instead you are always being told that there has always been a "scholarly consensus" on the issue, which is clearly a lie.
References!
-
References!
Well that wasn't in response to my post, but I can give you some references. Check out Kahled Abou El Fadl's "Speaking in God's Name" - he has extensive endnotes which state which jurists said what - and which jurists said that slave women were not required/allowed to cover their heads and the ones that said they only had to cover from knee to navel like a man. I could type it up, but it's a good page worth and it's time consuming so unless you absolutely can't look it up yourself, I won't type it.
-
References!
Check out Kahled Abou El Fadl's "Speaking in God's Name" - he has extensive endnotes which state which jurists said what - and which jurists said that slave women were not required/allowed to cover their heads and the ones that said they only had to cover from knee to navel like a man. I could type it up, but it's a good page worth
The term 'awrah is defined by referring to those parts of the body that must be covered during prayer and that are prohibited from being seen. Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi; 1359. Linguistically, it refers to something faulty (nuqs?n or 'ayb) or repulsive (mustaqbah or qubh). Al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1312; Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-R?'iq, 1467.
Generally, jurists provide a definition of the 'awrah when addressing how a Muslim should dress when making obligatory prayers (sal?t). Interestingly, the earliest traditions on the subject do not reflect a specific discussion on 'awrah. Rather they address different dress styles and, at least in the case of women, draw distinctions between certain classes of women. For instance, early works relate traditions of the Prophet praying while wrapped in a single thawb or garment that draped over his shoulders and covered his front and back (layukh?lifu bayna tarafayhi 'al? 'Abd al-Razz?q, al-Musannaf, 1350, 353. See also, Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Kit?b al-Musannaf, 1275-277.
Others suggest that it is better to pray with two garments, namely one wrapped around the waist (iz?r) and another draped around the shoulders (rid?'. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 1349, 353-354, 356; Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Kit?b al-Musannaf, 12'75-276. See also, al-Raml?, Nih?yat al-Muht?j (1992), 213; al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1316-317. However, the conflict over men's proper attire arises when one's garment is too small. One set of traditions holds that if a man's garment is large enough, he should drape it over himself (mutawashshih), but if it is small, he should pray with the garment wrapped around his waist (muttazir or yukh?lifu bayna tarafayhi). Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 1352, 353; Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 1275, 276, 277. See also, al-Qar?f?, al-Dhakh?rah, 2112; Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi, 164. Others argued that he can pray with a single garment as long as part of it can be draped over his shoulder. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 1353; Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 1278. See also, al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qina?', 1318; Muhammad Amin Ibn 'Abid?n, H?shiyat Radd al-Muht?r, (1966), 1404.
According to the Companion Ibn Mas'?d, if one cannot find sufficient material, then it is permissible to pray with only one garment. However if sufficient material is available, then he should pray with two. However, others such as Umar b. al-Khatt?b disagreed> and held that only one garment wrapped around the waist was sufficient for prayers. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 1356; Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 1278-279. See also, Ibn Rushd, Bid?yat al-Mujtahid. 1159.
Incidentally, one report suggests that wearing a garment around the waist was endorsed partly to distinguish the Muslims from the Jews. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 1352; Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 1278. Notably, the term 'awrah does not appear in this discussion. Likewise, it is not used in the early discussion on women's attire in prayer. The traditions instead address the kinds of clothing a woman must wear in prayer, and distinguishes between the appropriate attire for free and slave women. Specifically, al-San'?n? relates traditions on two issues. The first issue concerns what a free woman must wear when praying. Generally, the items for consideration are a khim?r, jilb?b, dir` s?bigh, and milhaf. al-San'?n? al-Musannaf, 3128-129, 131, 135; Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf, 236-37. See also, al-M?ward?, al-H?w? al-Kab?r, 2169; Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi', 1366; al-Raml?, Nih?yat al-Muht?j (1992), 213-14; al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1318; Ibn Hazm, al-Muhall? 22249-250.
The second issue concerns whether a slave woman must also wear a khim?r for prayer? The khim?r is generally a garment that covers a woman's head. Ibn Manz?r, Lis?n al-'Arab, 4257; Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi
, 1366; al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1318. The meaning of dirs?bigh generally suggests some type of loose-fitting garment that extends to one's feet. The relevant distinction is that a dirdoes not necessarily cover a woman's head. Ibn Manz?r, Lis?n al-'Arab, 881-82; Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi, 1366; Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, 1871-872.Jilb?b refers to a garment that is larger than a khim?r and generally covers a woman's head and chest area, but may also cover her entire body. In some cases it is used as a synonym for khim?r, and in others for an iz?r. Ibn Manz?r, Lis?n al-'Arab, 1272-273. And a milhaf is a blanket (dith?r) or cover which is wrapped over other clothes. Ibn Manz?r, Lis?n al-'Arab, 9314. Al-San'?n? reports that the Prophet said that menstruating free women must wear a khim?r, otherwise their prayer will not be accepted. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 3130, 131; Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 239-40.
The reference to menstruation is generally regarded as a reference to adulthood or the age of majority. Al-Margh?n?n?, al-Hid?ya, 143. Women who are not adults are not necessarily subject to this requirement. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 3132. In another tradition, a woman is supposed to wear a khim?r, a dir
, and an iz?r, although there is some countervailing traditions against this position. Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi, 1366. Some traditions suggest that an acceptable dir' must be long and loose enough to cover the appearance of a woman's feet, although without a khim?r, it is insufficient. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 3128; Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 236.One tradition relates that 'A'isha was seen wearing during prayer a garment around her waist (mu'tazirah), a dir
, and a thick khim?r. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, p. 129. On the other hand, Umm Hab?bah, a wife of the Prophet, is reported to have worn a dir, and an iz?r that was large enough to drape around her and reach the ground. Notably, she did not wear a khim?r. Id. Yet another tradition relates that the Prophet's wives Maym?na and Umm Salamah would wear a khim?r and a dir` s?bigh Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 236.107
The issue of 'awrah is complex partly because it is extremely difficult to retrace and reclaim the historical process that produced the determinations as to 'awrah. The conventional wisdom maintains that early on, Muslim jurists held that what should be covered in prayer should be covered outside of prayer. This, however, is not entirely true. The dominant juristic schools of thought argued that the 'awrah of men is what is between the knee and navel. A man ought to cover what is between the knee and navel inside and outside of prayer.A minority view, however, argued that the 'awrah of men is limited to the groin and buttocks only; the thighs are not 'awrah. The 'awrah of women was a more complex matter. As noted below, the majority argued that all of a woman's body except the hands and face is 'awrah. Ab? Hanifa held that the feet are not 'awrah, and some argued that half the arm up to the elbow, or the full arm, is not a 'awrah. A minority view held that even the face and hands are 'awrah and therefore, must be covered as well. An early minority view held that the hair and calves are not 'awrah. In addition, some argued that women must cover their hair at prayer, but not outside of prayer.
Importantly, the jurists disagreed on whether the covering of the 'awrah is a condition precedent for the validity of prayer. The majority held that covering the 'awrah is a fard (basic and necessary requirement) so that the failure to cover the 'awrah would invalidate a person's prayers. The minority view (mostly but not exclusively M?lik? jurists) held that covering the 'awrah is not a condition precedent for prayer - accordingly, this school argued that covering the 'awrah is among the sunan of prayer (the recommended acts in prayer), and the failure to cover the 'awrah would not void a person's prayers. A large number of Hanafi jurists argued that as long as three-fourth of the body is covered the prayer is valid. Interestingly, M?lik reportedly allowed people to pray naked ('ur?h), if they were unable to procure dressing garments. However he suggested that such people should pray alone so as not to see each other's 'awrah, and remain standing throughout.
However if they are praying in the dark of night (layl muzlim), they may pray in congregation with an im?m leading them. Sahn?n b. Sa'?d, al-Mudawwana al-Kubr? (Beirut D?r Sadr, n.d.), 195-96. See also, al-Qar?f?, al-Dhakh?rah, 2106-107; Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi ; 1370-374. The Shi'i al-T?s? adopts the same view and also allows them to pray in congregation during daylight hours, as long as they pray in only one line and in a sitting Position. al-T?s?, al-Mabs?t, 187.
Al-Bah?t? goes so far as to say that even in this case, congregational prayer remains obligatory. Al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1324. See also, Ibn Hazm, al-Muhall?, 2255-257. Being unclothed for prayers does not allow one to steal clothes out of necessity, according to al-Raml?. Since one can pray naked, there is no necessity as in the case of stealing clothes to protect oneself from heat or freezing temperatures, or stealing food to prevent death by starvation. Al-Raml?, Nih?yat al-Muht?j (1992), 212. See also, al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1322-324, who addresses the various means by which those without sufficient clothes can pray.
The overwhelming majority of jurists held that the 'awrah of a slave-girl, or even a female servant girl, is different. Some jurists argued that the 'awrah of such a woman is between the knee and navel - the same as a man. The other jurists held that the 'awrah of such a woman is from the beginning of the chest area to the knees and down to the elbows. Therefore, the majority agreed that a slave-girl or servant-girl may pray with her hair exposed.
A minority view argued that slave-girls should cover their hair in prayer, but do not have to do so outside of prayer. In short, it seems to me that the conventional wisdom is not exactly correct; there seems to be sufficient grounds for differentiating between the 'awrah in prayer and outside of prayer. Furthermore, as noted below, the 'awrah of slave-girls or servant-girls, inside and outside of prayer, raise serious questions about the basis for the historical juristic determinations regarding the 'awrah of women.
See, on the law of `awrah al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 3128-136 (documents some of the early opinions). For M?lik? school, see Ibn Rushd (II), Bid?yat al-Mujtahid, 1156-158; Ibn Rushd (I), al-Muqaddim?t al-Mumahhid?t 1183-185; Sahn?n, nl-Mudawwana (Dar Sadr), 194; al-Hatt?b al-Ra'?n?, Maw?hib al-Jal?l 2177-187; al-Qar?f?, al-Dhakh?rah, 2101-105. For Sh?fi'? school, see al-Sh?fi'?, al-Umm (Beirut Dar al-Fikr, n.d.), 1109; al-Raml?, Nih?yat al-Muht?j (1992), 27-8, 13; al-M?ward?, al-H?w? al-Kab?r, 2165-171. For Hanaf? school, see Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-R?'iq, 1467, 469-476; Ibn 'Abid?n, H?shiyat Radd (1966), 1405; al-K?s?n?, Bad?'i' al-San?'i' ; pp. 543-546. For Hanbal? school, see Ibn Qud?mah, al-Mughn? (Dar Ihy?' al-Tur?th al-'Arab?), 1601; Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi', 1361-367; al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1315-317. For Ja 'far? school, see al-T?s?, al-Mabs?t, 187-88.
109
Qur'?n 3358-60. Reportedly these verses were revealed in response to several incidents in which the hypocrites of Medina harassed and molested Muslim women. Al-R?z?, al-Tafs?r al-Kab?r (1999), 9183-184; al-Tabar?, Tafs?r al-Tabar? 6199-200; al-Qurtub?, al-J?mi' (1993), 14157-158; Ibn Kath?r Mukhtasar Tafs?r Ibn Kath?r, 3114-115.123
Some of the late jurists argued that if a slave-girl will cause a fitnah she must cover her breasts or hair. Al-Hatt?b relates that although a slave woman's 'awrah is the same as a man's, some have said that it is reprehensible for someone who is not her owner to view what is under her garments, or to view her breasts, chest, or whatever else "leads to fitnah" (wa m? yad'? al-fitnah minh?). Consequently, despite having the same 'awrah as men, it is preferred that she bare her head but cover her body. Al-Hatt?b Maw?hib al-Jal?l, 2180, 184. See also, al-Qar?f?, al-Dhakhirah, 2103-104. Al-Bah?t relates views suggesting that as a matter of caution (ihtiy?t), it is preferrable that the slave-girl cover herself in the Same fashion as an adult free woman, including covering her head during prayer. Al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1316. Ibn 'Abid?n also argues that most of the scholars of the Hanaf? school do not permit a slave woman to have her breasts, chest, or back exposed; however it is said that a slave woman's chest is part of her 'awrah only in prayer but not otherwise. Nevertheless, Ibn 'Abid?n finds this latter view unconvincing. Ibn 'Abid?n, H?shiya Radd (1966), 1405. See also, Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-R?'iq, 1474; al-Margh?n??, al-Hid?ya, 144.126
Reportedly, the early jurists D?w?d b. 'Al? and Jar?r al-Tabar? the founder of a now extinct school of jurisprudence, held that the 'awrah of men and women, slave or otherwise, is the same. See al-M?ward?, al-H?w? al-Kab?r, 2167.127
For instance, al-Rust?q?, Manhaj al-T?lib?n, 821, 26, argues that every place and time have their own iaws. He states that in some places it is acceptable for women to reveal their hair while in Oman it is considered ugly (qab?h). He concludes by stating that whatever Muslims see as ugly is, in fact, ugly. Al-Margh?n?n?, al-Hid?ya, 144, mentions that slave-girls were not required to wear the veil because they need to work and requiring the veil would cause hardship (daf 'an li al-haraj).Al-Qar?f? relates a tradition in which
Umar b. al-Khatt?b asks his son why he was silent about the fact that the latter's slave woman walked about wearing an iz?r like a free woman. Reportedly,Umar then adds that if he were to see her, he would hit her for doing so. Al-Qar?f? explains `Umar's position was relevant only to a very specific historical situation in Medina, in which crazed men would harass slave women but not Irre women.
See al-Qar?f?, al-Dhakh?rah,129
For the six points above see, al-Tabar? J?mi' al-Bay?n, 1893-95, 2233-34 (mentions a variety of early opinions including the up to the elbow and the beginning of cleavage area determinations; also mentions the distinction between free and slave girls; mentions the historical practice); al-Nasaf?, Tafs?r al-Nasaf? (Cairo Dar Ihy?' al-Kutub al-Arabiyya, n.d.), 3140, 313, (mentions '?dah, jibillah, and h?jah; women need to reveal their faces, hands, and feet by custom, nature, and need; mentions the distinction applicable to slavegirls; mentions the historical practice);al-Jass?s, Ahk?m, 3409-410, 486, mentions that slave-girls do not have to cover their hair; mentions the historical practice); al-Kiyy? al-Harr?s?, ahk?m al-Qur'?n (1974), 4288, 354 (notes slave-girls do not have to cover their faces or hair); Ibn al-'Arab?', Ahk?m al-Qur'?n (n.d.), 31368-78, 1586-87 (mentions a variety of details to adornments; discusses the rule as to slave-girls); al-Qurtub?, al-J?mi'(1993), 12152-153, 157; 14156-157 (mentions that the verse was revealed to address the harassment of women, and to differentiate slave-girls from Muslim women; notes the opinion that held that the verse called for the covering of the bosom area);
Ibn Kath?r, Mukhtasar Tafs?r Ibn Kath?r, 2600; 3114-115, (mentions determinations as to the bosom; also notes that free Muslim women must cover their faces); Ab? Hayy?n al-Andalus?, Tafs?r al-Bahr al-Muh?t, 6412; 7240-241 (mentions custom, nature, necessity; mentions the historical practice as to revealing the bosom; mentions the distinction as to slave-girls); al-Zamakhshari, al-Kashsh?f, 360-62, 274 (mentions the historical practice, distinction as to slave-girls, the rules as to functionality and custom, mentions that covering ought not cause hardship);
Ibn al-Jawz?, Z?d al-Mas?r f? 'Ilm al-Tafs?r, 5377-378; 6224 (mentions mashaqqah - hardship); al-M?ward?, al-Nukat wa al-'Uy?n, 490-93, 424-425, (notes the opinion that the purpose of revelation was to instruct women to cover their bosoms; mentions the differentiation as to slave-girls); al-Shinq?t?, Adw?' al-Bay?n, 6192-203, 586-600 (mentions a variety of positions; mentions determinations as to revealing the arm up to the elbow and the view that the point is to cover the bosom; mentions the historical practice and differentiation as to slave-girls; author supports covering the face); Ibn Taymiyya, al-Tafs?r, 623, (notes that the law of veiling does not apply to slave-girls); Fakhr al-D?n Muhammad al-R?z?, al-Tafs?r al-Kab?r (a.k.a Maf?t?h al-Ghayb), 23176-179; 25198-199, (mentions al-'?dah al-j?riyah (the habitual custom) and functionality as the focal issues in determining what women ought to cover; mentions the historical practice and the distinction as to slave-girls);
Ibn 'Atiyya, al-Muharrar al-Waj?z, 4178, 399 (mentions the determinations as to the bosom and arm up to the elbow; mentions the rule of functionality and custom; mentions the historical practice and the distinction as to slave-girls); al-Suy?t?, al-Durr al-Manth?r, 545-46, 239-241 (mentions the determinations as to the arm up to the elbow and the bosom; notes the discussion regarding the beginning of the cleavage area; mentions the historical practice and the distinction as to slave-girls); al-Bur?s?, Tanw?r al-Adhh?n, 357-59, 254-255, (mentions the determinations as to the arm up to the elbow and the bosom; mentions the historical practice and distinction as to slave-girls); Ab? Hafs `Umar b. 'Al? Ibn 'Adil al-Dimashq? al-Lub?b f? 'Ul?m al-Kit?b 14355-358; 15588-590 (mentions that according to some reports the verse was revealed to vindicate 'Al?'s family.
Also mentions that other reports contend that hypocrites of Medina would solicit women at night. Girls who practiced prostitution would respond to their solicitation. The verse was revealed partly to end this practice. Mentions the rule of practice and custom (m? u't?da kashfuh), and functionality and rule of necessity; mentions the distinction as to slave-girls); al-Al?s?, R?h al-Ma'?n? (1985), 18140-142; 2289, (mentions the issue of functionality and that slave-girls lead an active economic life; mentions custom, habit, and nature; mentions the historical practice); al-S?w?, H?shiyat al-'All?mah, 3136-137, 288-289 (mentions various positions).
(from Khaled Abou el Fadl's "Speaking in God?s Name ? Islamic Law, Authority and Women"
-
She's ugly compared to you, of course she doesn't have to cover her head.
Neither is she ugly, nor do you know what I look like. And if you say that only attractive women have to cover their head, the logical conclusion of that thought would be to say that a woman with a pretty face should cover her face.
nope
-
Neither is she ugly, nor do you know what I look like. And if you say that only attractive women have to cover their head, the logical conclusion of that thought would be to say that a woman with a pretty face should cover her face.
nope
Of course, now the Hijab takes on a whole new meaning. I guess it's only for non-'ugly' women. And I thought that these guys were trying to push to whole modesty argument. I stand corrected.
-
Well that wasn't in response to my post, but I can give you some references. Check out Kahled Abou El Fadl's "Speaking in God's Name" - he has extensive endnotes which state which jurists said what - and which jurists said that slave women were not required/allowed to cover their heads and the ones that said they only had to cover from knee to navel like a man. I could type it up, but it's a good page worth and it's time consuming so unless you absolutely can't look it up yourself, I won't type it.
"Professor El-Fadl was appointed by President George W. Bush as a commissioner on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. "
You better type it...
I'll let you guess why.
-
Neither is she ugly, nor do you know what I look like. And if you say that only attractive women have to cover their head, the logical conclusion of that thought would be to say that a woman with a pretty face should cover her face.
nope
I'm going to have to say that you should refer to quran 2430-31 and let me know what entices men to look at women, and what is the zinatan on a woman. Because the logical conclusion of the quran is that a pretty face attracts the eyes of men and that the pretty face is the zinata of the woman, not forgetting everything that would be pretty/alluring on her.
Thank you for quoting that guy... it's obvious that he likes to refer to men over the quran. But of course, we can understand how slave/servant/employed women would not be asked to wear such things... especially when in some cases they were being shared to guests.
That list of quotes doesn't mention dates.
-
Of course, now the Hijab takes on a whole new meaning. I guess it's only for non-'ugly' women. And I thought that these guys were trying to push to whole modesty argument. I stand corrected.
Modesty argument? We push for the quranic argument no?
Of course the hijab is for non ugly people, men are of course ugly females. (anyone who says men can be pretty... gay men aye, but most women are super pretty for men).
-
I didn't type it myself. peace
"Professor El-Fadl was appointed by President George W. Bush as a commissioner on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. "
And your point is?
You asked for references and I gave them to you. They are clear enough for everyone to further check for themselves.
-
I didn't type it myself. peace
And your point is?
You asked for references and I gave them to you. They are clear enough for everyone to further check for themselves.
Yeah... I made reference to you adding the quotes. LOok up.
Thank you for quoting that guy... it's obvious that he likes to refer to men over the quran. But of course, we can understand how slave/servant/employed women would not be asked to wear such things... especially when in some cases they were being shared to guests... and forced as against their will as mentioned in quran 2433
That list of quotes doesn't mention dates.
My point is one that needed to be known to me at least. He's not someone who quran only folk would look to, wouldn't they? And I see he has been criticized for playing the same game he claims others play according to one review I referred to the amazon reviews of his book mentioned above.
It will take a phd thesis to analyze and double check that all.
And I'm sure a muslimah cannot be a slave girl, can she?
-
My point is one that needed to be known to me at least. He's not someone who quran only folk would look to, wouldn't they? And I see he has been criticized for playing the same game he claims others play according to one review I referred to the amazon reviews of his book mentioned above.
It will take a phd thesis to analyze and double check that all.
And I'm sure a muslimah cannot be a slave girl, can she?
It does not matter who he is, as long as his references are correct. And he's very thorough in listing all of them.
Yes, muslimahs WERE slave girls. Becoming Muslim (or being Muslim) did not mean you were able to go free.
-
It does not matter who he is, as long as his references are correct. And he's very thorough in listing all of them.
Yes, muslimahs WERE slave girls. Becoming Muslim (or being Muslim) did not mean you were able to go free.
Yes even I know they "WERE" slave girls... but as for his references... and as for people going free (you find the working women here and there today as slave girls of lesser rights)... well as for his references, tabari provides references but tabari is just a historian and makes it clear in his introduction that he is not responsible for the authenticity of the sources, just that he recorded them. As for slave not being able to go free... quran 2433.
My question is, if that is the case here. Are his sources authenticated? Are his sources something that confirm the quran?
Seriously... why are we using hadiths and practice of the past in relationship to avoiding hijab? Come on now... you can't have it both ways. Disagree on certain hadiths and then claim some hadiths are acceptable.
Oh and in hadiths science part of the matn of checking a hadith is asking if the person recording the hadith had a sound character.
Him being put in a certain post by a certain hawk against muslim interests... is questionable and raises flags.
Let me make a note that we are surely all slaves of the god, no? No I don't need to make a mention of that.
-
Yes even I know they "WERE" slave girls... but as for his references... and as for people going free (you find the working women here and there today as slave girls of lesser rights)... well as for his references, tabari provides references but tabari is just a historian and makes it clear in his introduction that he is not responsible for the authenticity of the sources, just that he recorded them. As for slave not being able to go free... quran 2433.
My question is, if that is the case here. Are his sources authenticated? Are his sources something that confirm the quran?
Seriously... why are we using hadiths and practice of the past in relationship to avoiding hijab? Come on now... you can't have it both ways. Disagree on certain hadiths and then claim some hadiths are acceptable.
Oh and in hadiths science part of the matn of checking a hadith is asking if the person recording the hadith had a sound character.
Him being put in a certain post by a certain hawk against muslim interests... is questionable and raises flags.
Let me make a note that we are surely all slaves of the god, no? No I don't need to make a mention of that.
You asked for references on who said it was okay for slave girls to pray bare-breasted or not cover their hair, etc.
That was given to you.
If you want to ignore it, then that's fine. But it does exist ... scholars did not unanimously say that all women had to cover their hair. There was disagreement on what, and how much had/could be covered. -
You asked for references on who said it was okay for slave girls to pray bare-breasted or not cover their hair, etc.
That was given to you.
If you want to ignore it, then that's fine. But it does exist ... scholars did not unanimously say that all women had to cover their hair. There was disagreement on what, and how much had/could be covered.Just because I asked for the references, doesn't mean I'm going to willingly accept them. They need to be confirmed.
-
Lifting the veil of silence on hijab
By Ahmed Maged and Sarah O. Wali
First Published July 11, 2008CAIRO Twenty-five-year-old Reem is mustering all her courage to make a move she had been contemplating for months. Years ago, Reem had taken on the hijab (Islamic headscarf) but now she was about to remove it once and for all.
Like many girls her age, Reem represents a growing trend in Egyptian society of women deciding to remove the hijab, despite the social and family pressure to keeping it on.
The growing phenomenon includes students and fresh graduates as well as grown middle-aged women, who may have donned the veil for over 15 years.
Dina Mohamed, 38 (not her real name) is a former translator who now works in public relations and who was still at school when she first got veiled. Her life-changing decision, however, not only led to a dramatic career change, but also to her divorce.
?I grew up wearing the veil and initially I had never questioned it,? Dina told Daily News Egypt.
?My husband, who was religious and conservative at one point, strengthened my commitment to abide by the Islamic dress code by encouraging me to wear black. Because of that commitment I had to pursue a certain type of career,? added Dina.
?It was a big blow to me when, by chance, I discovered that my husband played behind my back with other women and that he wasn?t the pious man he pretended to be.
?I woke up to a fallacy, a mirage, then decided to throw away the veil, wear fashionable colorful clothes and get a better-paid PR job I had always wanted.?
Dina is quick to add that she still behaves within the boundaries of decency.
?I haven?t gone to the other extreme as other women who remove the veil,? she says.
Laila Rashid, 45, who removed the veil early this year says that it was a very personal decision.
A few years after Laila had completed her university degree at Cairo University?s faculty of arts, she moved with her husband to Saudi Arabia where, like him, she was a teacher.
The change in her appearance and outlook became obvious to everyone who knew her when she returned from Saudi about five years later.
She became a preacher in her spare time, alongside her day job as a secondary school teacher.
When the authorities started a massive clamped-down on the Muslim Brotherhood in the past two years, Laila told her friends that she will have to giving religious lessons temporarily, but then she surprised everyone by appearing publicly without the hijab. She is still married.
A new trend?
Religious scholars believe that those who remove the veil are an insignificant minority in a society where a passion for religion is all-encompassing.
Others argue that it is unrealistic to dismiss the trend simply because it is impossible to tell whether an unveiled women used to wear the hijab in the past, or to obtain statistics on the issue.
?Even those who have taken it off once and for all prefer not to make it public knowledge,? noted Dr Ghada El Khouly, assistant professor of psychiatry at Ain Shams University.
?One of the symptoms of personality disorder among some patients is the hasty and unjustified wearing and removal of the headscarf,? El Khouly said.
Although the hijab remains a personal decision, its social and psychological repercussions cannot be ignored.?I believe it is the religious factor that rules supreme in matters like hijab,?
Mahmoud Ashour, of the Islamic Research Center told Daily News Egypt.
?Those contesting the influence of religion and opting to refer the matter to a series of social factors could be right, but they should remember that the social aspect of hijab also emanates from religion,? Ashour explained.
However, Nadra Wahdan, a sociologist at the National Planning Institute in Cairo, insists the veil is part of a cultural tradition and is bound to take a back seat as the winds of change start to overtake local culture.
Conflicts of opinion
The tug-of-war over the hijab has a been a bone of contention between the religious institution and secularists in Egypt, with the scholars at Al-Azhar, the bastion of Sunni Islam, insisting that the hijab is a religious obligation stipulated in the Holy Quran.
However, unconventional Islamic thinker Gamal El Banna, breaks from traditional views on the issue, heralding in what critics believe to be a more moderate/modern trends in Islamic thought.
El Banna argued in a highly controversial book titled ?The Hijab? that, in addition to the lack of proof to support the belief that the veil is a religious obligation, the headscarf is impractical and can be an obstacle for women who wish to pursue certain careers.
He also says that a woman?s hair was never seen as a temptation the way many male chauvinists believed.
A tradition that preceded the advent of Islam by 2000 years, the veil is the mark of a bygone era that is unsuited to current developments in the women?s status, El Banna says.
While Ashour believes that there is no arguing that the hijab is a religious obligation, taking it on should be left entirely to individual women?s decision and conviction.
?There is no use wearing it in your neighborhood then taking off immediately once you?re away,? he stressed.
The younger generation
While sociologist Wahdan stresses the social impact that compels girls and women at home, school or the workplace to don the hijab, Somaya Ibrahim, a gender and development specialist and a women?s rights activist, points out that research on the phenomenon indicates that many young women usually start wearing it at a critical time in their lives.
Echoing the same view, El Khouly said ?In most cases I?ve seen the act of donning the veil was an emotional decision taken as a reaction to a crisis, severe stress or isolation. When the surrounding circumstances change, those girls immediately remove the veil.?
The accounts of Salma Saqr, Reham Hossam El Din, Noura Kamel and Sarah Assem, four young women who chose to remove the hijab, give credence to the specialists? theory.
The four girls, all in their 20s, have been veiled for an average of five years.
They first decided to cover their hair after listening to preacher Amr Khaled, but all admit that their decision cannot be seen in isolation from their social and family backgrounds.
Salma?s black robe and scarf, for instance, was a reaction to her family?s liberal attitude and lack of religiosity.
While Reham took the decision to protect herself from the permissiveness of her high school management that was too tolerant of matters relating sexual relations, drinking and drug addiction, Noura got veiled after a long phase of depression and desperation. The veil came as part of her decision to turn to God for consolation.
Sarah, who grew up in the US, was forced to wear as their religious father feared she and her two sisters would be swayed by Western values.
But at one point they all decided to bid farewell to the hijab.?I had a really bad experience with some overtly religious people, some of whom were morally corrupt,? recounted Salma.
She added ?I began to feel that the hijab was a camouflage and not necessarily a mark of piety. Now I no longer associate faith with dress. I know many veiled girls who don?t pray and have boyfriends.?
Salma adds that her family was happy to see her shed the hijab.
?I must also admit it is very difficult to be veiled amid a group of liberal people in the same way you feel out of place as an unveiled girl amid a conservative group.?
Reham found out that being veiled made her life very difficult.
?People judge veiled women harshly and require them to adhere to very strict and specific rules,? she told Daily News Egypt.?Some people use the veil only as a defense against harassment,? she continued. ?When you take it off you learn how to develop the self-confidence necessary to defend yourself.?
Noura was put off when one day a preacher said that girls who didn?t wear the hijab would never get married.
?I was shocked and I started to have serious doubts about whether it was right to cover my hair,? says Noura. ?It seemed ridiculous that someone would assume that an unveiled woman would never get married.?
For Sarah it was a different matter.
?As I attended Islamic conferences regularly I realized that the hijab was more than a dress code.
?Veiled women were perceived unassuming and tended to accept being pushed to the sidelines. Many times I tried to come to the forefront to discuss things but was brushed aside because I was veiled. People assume that a muhajaba (veiled woman) should remain silent.
?Slowly I began to give up wearing long dresses then renounced the hijab completely.?
http//www.thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=15019
-
Lifting the veil of silence on hijab
By Ahmed Maged and Sarah O. Wali
First Published July 11, 2008?My husband, who was religious and conservative at one point, strengthened my commitment to abide by the Islamic dress code by encouraging me to wear black. Because of that commitment I had to pursue a certain type of career,? added Dina.
?It was a big blow to me when, by chance, I discovered that my husband played behind my back with other women and that he wasn?t the pious man he pretended to be.
?I woke up to a fallacy, a mirage, then decided to throw away the veil, wear fashionable colorful clothes and get a better-paid PR job I had always wanted.?
Dina is quick to add that she still behaves within the boundaries of decency.
?I haven?t gone to the other extreme as other women who remove the veil,? she says.
Emotional reasons for donning, emotional reasons for undonning.
Islam is about worshiping the god, not worshiping men.
-
Stop Telling Muslim Women How to Dress
A lot of people need to calm down about this subject. Whether it?s among non-Muslims, Muslims, or fascist Islamophobes in Europe and North America, there seems to be a growing obsession with Muslim women and the way they dress.
A few weeks ago, I attended an event as part of ?Islamic Awareness Week? hosted by a local university where a panel of three Muslim women shared their personal experiences and views on Islam and modesty. Two of the women wore hijaab (headscarf) and one didn?t, which apparently, I?m sorry to say, seemed enough to draw controversy.
In the Q&A discussion, a young Muslim man said something that made me take pause and then realize how utterly offensive and repulsive his comment was. He argued that the Qur?an is ?not spiritual,? but rather ?practical,? especially in regards to hijaab because, according to him, ?the hijaab is supposed to cover a woman?s neck and I admit, when I see a woman?s neck, I get attracted.? I smiled and looked at one of the panelists, a friend of mine, who also smiled at the absurdity of his comment. I followed up by tossing the panel a question that was set up for my friend to spike the young man?s comment ?I am sick and tired of men telling Muslim women how to dress,? she said boldly. She included both the Muslim men who impose hijaab/niqaab/burqa on Muslim women and the Islamophobes who are hell-bent on banning these styles of dress.
I am familiar with the young man?s views on hijaab and modesty. I used to say similar things myself. I would see Muslim women wearing tight shirts, jeans, and no hijaab, and I would judge them in my thoughts ?Look at how she?s dressed and she calls herself ?Muslim??? Then I would gripe to my Muslim friends, both female and male, about how ?westernized? Muslim women are becoming. I remember coming across Muslim women wearing hijaab and tight jeans and thinking how hypocritical she must be. And the reason why my Muslim friends and I were so upset about this was because such manner of dress drew lustful and sexual gazes from men. In other words, I believed that, for the most part, Muslim women were responsible for the ?uncontrollable? sexual urges of men.
It was always a Muslim woman?s fault. If some ignorant non-Muslim playfully tugged her hijaab in the computer lab, it was her fault because she gave him the liberty to be that free with her. If a man was checking her out, it was her fault because she didn?t choose to wear a long shirt. Unfortunately, I find this sexist mentality to be very prevalent in Sunni orthodoxies, especially among Muslim men. The disturbing thing, in my opinion, is how I thought that everything I believed about Muslim women, how they should dress, and how they should behave was not sexist, but actually liberating because it taught Muslim women how to be ?real,? ?respectable? women.
Over the years, I learned that it wasn?t about liberating women. It was about controlling them and molding them the way I wanted them to be. The way a lot Muslim men want them to be obedient, passive, soft-spoken, sensitive, reserved, etc. In my mind, it was improper and sacrilegious for Muslim women to even flirt with a man, to even make a mentioning of sex, to even have male friends. Why? Because with this sexist, over-controlling, and uber-conservative mindset, it is always about sex.
ALWAYS. ABOUT. SEX.
Why can?t Muslim women be friends with men? Because there is a chance of sex. Why can?t Muslim women laugh or smile at a man? Because one of them might be thinking about sex. Why can?t Muslim women and Muslim men shake hands? Because they might get so turned on that they?ll rip each other?s clothes off and start having sex. Oh my God, if I hear a woman give the azaan (call to prayer), I?ll start thinking about sex because a woman?s voice is attractive and alluring. Oh no, we can?t take the partition out of the Mosques, the women and men won?t be able to keep their hands off each other. As if there?s a high risk of a giant orgy or something. That sounds practical.
And it?s not that sex is a bad thing ? it?s not ? but when it?s used in this hyper-sexual context to control the way women think, behave, and dress, it becomes something very dirty. Extremely dirty (see the paragraph above). Over time, this made me very uncomfortable because on one hand, Muslims would stress so much on ?modesty? and not seeing each other as sex objects, but ironically, that is exactly what we were doing sexually objectifying each other. The young Muslim man at the event who said he gets attracted by a woman?s neck is talking about her as a sex object, as if her body is so tempting that he cannot resist it, hence she must cover up. It also made me wonder if he had any idea how disgusting and sexual his comment was, considering that the majority of women (Muslim and non-Muslim) in the room had their necks visible? What is he saying, that he is thinking about each and every one of them sexually? And that if his mind is flooded with sexual thoughts, it is their fault?
This needs to stop. Muslim men need to stop examining Muslim women like lab specimens and instead, turn inward and look at themselves. It?s like blaming a rape victim and saying ?she was just asking for it? because of the way she was dressed. Too often, I?ve heard Muslim men tell me, ?Oh brother, look at the way Muslim women dress these days. They have no dignity, they don?t care about the Sunnah or Islam.? Too often, I?ve heard Muslim men point out a Muslim woman and say, ?Look at how she?s wearing tight jeans? or a ?t-shirt? or ?not even wearing hijaab.?
My response is So? Let them dress however they want. Look at you, I say sometimes to certain Muslim men, you?re wearing a muscle shirt, you don?t think you?re showing off your skin or that women can?t get attracted? How can you look into a person?s soul and judge them based on what they are wearing? The Qur?an talks so much about humility, yet so many of us are quick to make judgments about a person?s faith, as if we have some authority to do so. I have known Muslim women who don?t wear hijaab and are more religious/spiritual than I am. I have known Muslim women who wear hijaab, but hardly know anything about the Prophet?s life (peace be upon him). This doesn?t mean one is better than the other. The way a Muslim woman dresses should not be seen as reflective of her faith.
As a Muslim man, I tend to stay away from this topic of how Muslim women dress only because I see so many other Muslim men arrogantly giving lectures, writing books, and dictating in Mosques about how Muslim women should dress. Where are the lectures, books, and sermons that tell men to keep themselves in check? Why is there this sexist double-standard and attitude that Muslim women cannot be attracted to Muslim men either? Where are the imams and religious leaders who say, ?If you?re getting turned on by a woman?s neck, that is your problem because you are seeing her as a sex object?? The truth is that Muslim men can have sexual thoughts about Muslim women regardless if they?re wearing hijaab or not, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. If a man feels distracted by sexual thoughts, it is not because of the way Muslim women are dressed, it is because his mind has wandered off in that direction. He should not blame a Muslim woman for his issues, he should turn inward and deal with it himself.
There is nothing wrong with desire and attraction. We are naturally attracted to each other as human beings. It is the way God made us and Islam does not teach celibacy, but rather to fulfill our desires in responsible ways. I am not saying we should see each other as sex objects, I am saying we should be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that yes, you may see someone in the Mosque or at an MSA event that you are attracted to, but that doesn?t mean your thoughts are ?evil? and ?impure.? How can we talk so much about marriage in Muslim communities without also talking about attraction, physical and non-physical? There is such a thing as Love and marriage where people find their partners beautiful and attractive, and don?t view/treat one another as sex objects.
We need to stop obsessing over the way Muslim women dress because it continues to lead to many problems that exists in our communities today awkward and often hypersexualized gender interactions/relations, stigmatization of non-hijaab Muslim women, sexism and misogyny, and even problems in relationships/marriage, among many other things. If we really care about God?s Love and Compassion, then why make others in our community ? people we are supposed to consider our spiritual sisters and brothers ? feel like ?bad? or ?deviant? Muslims just because they don?t dress the way we want them to?
Why not express our compassion by accepting each other for who they are, treat everyone equally and refrain from making judgments? Isn?t that what humility is about?
http//muslimreverie.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/stop-telling-muslim-women-how-to-dress/