Hijab: private, apparent & 7 conditions
-
Leyna you are bold, intelligent, lecturer, modern and what else? any thing; but not a good Muslim, that is what I feel according to Quran about you, put Quran aside you may get high marks for your thoughts.
"that is what I feel according to Quran about you" ? Clever attempt at playing God. You're just an awful poster. That's what I feel, according to me.
-
Likewise.
Uha, and you're either being rather dim or simply disingenuous if you don't see that many women hold the same attitude of the woman of that text. So you are in fact suggesting that many women who wear hijab are brainwashed.
Peace bro Mushu,
I'd be very careful, and absolutely sure of my opinion, before throwing words like 'hypocrite' around.
What if this was the truth? I believe CD made some excellent observations above as to why it might very well be.
Which IS bullshit. Like I said to bro huruf, using the 'brainwashing' card to ridicule women who hold a different position to you is stupid. It doesn't work because they can throw the same accusation back at you, and neither of you can claim to have the stronger claim. So if you're here to simply make unsubstantiated claims, then do us a favour and do it in a less verbose manner. Wrapping bs with eloquent rhetoric is tiring.
Simply throwing around 'brainwashing' ON ITS OWN is meaningless, sure; I agree with that. But, Leyna elucidated her view as to why she feels they're brainwashed. And I think she has a very valid point.
... but I kinda take exception when people like to spout stupidity in public. By all means, do it in private, but have some courtesy and refrain from inflicting it on others.
Isn't that what Leyna is doing? "Taking exception to people who spout stupidity in public" ? Isn't that what you feel you are doing by replying in such a manner to Leyna taking exception to people who spout stupidity in public... Is that also fighting fire with fire?
-
caveman-Doctor
"that is what I feel according to Quran about you" ? Clever attempt at playing God. You're just an awful poster. That's what I feel, according to me.
You are free to think about me whatever you like, but when you try to defend some one you should do it with some evidence.
Since you take great care about Leyna, it seems from your reply to Mushu and then me, why not answer the question I asked her
What dress should a women wear according to Quran?
let her answer this and I am sure you will need not defend her, against what I said about her.
-
caveman-Doctor
You are free to think about me whatever you like, but when you try to defend some one you should do it with some evidence.Since you take great care about Leyna, it seems from your reply to Mushu and then me, why not answer the question I asked her
What dress should a women wear according to Quran?
let her answer this and I am sure you will need not defend her, against what I said about her.
It's not about defending Leyna. Read a little more critically, and you'll see that there is a larger picture at stake here.
Appreciate the permission to think about you however I like nonetheless.
-
Jack and Caveman Doctor
If some one does not agree with thoughts of Leyna he is awful poster, another one should take care while calling her hypocrite or so, but when she insults some one its just fine, when she hurts the feelings of million women wearing Hijab as brain washed that is modern enlightenment.
This is just an awful hypocritical stand.
-
Jack and Caveman Doctor
If some one does not agree with thoughts of Leyna he is awful poster, another one should take care while calling her hypocrite or so, but when she insults some one its just fine, when she hurts the feelings of million women wearing Hijab as brain washed that is modern enlightenment.
This is just an awful hypocritical stand.
No no you misunderstand. I've known you to be an awful poster for quite some time now.
-
Leyna you are bold, intelligent, lecturer, modern and what else? any thing; but not a good Muslim, that is what I feel according to Quran about you, put Quran aside you may get high marks for your thoughts.
What? Wow, that was inappropriate and rude.
I agree with Leyna completely. I read her entire post, and I don't believe that what that sister is saying is entirely true. I believe that what she typed represents what she fantasizes the niqab and khimar represent. I completely understand the desire for someone to want to be associated with Islam, and on the other hand, I completely understand the desire not to be. I'm sure there are women who feel a bit like this woman does about wearing the hijab, but in my opinion, this sisters views of being a queen led by servants, etc, are cooked up out of a need to justify the fact that she believes "Allah strongly recommends the hijab." That is a terrible statement to make to any muslimah!! That's not even being frank and saying it is required, but instead it uses guilt to convince a woman to cover herself up as much as possible. That is from shaytan. I don't know the intended audience of the article, but even if she believes the contents fully, she has unwittingly become part of the problem by spreading fairy tales.
Women and men have freedom in the way they dress, as given by Allah. If they desire the niqab or khimar, then by all means! But don't concoct flowery nonsense about how you are superior by wearing it.
As a side note, sexual harassment seems prevalent against those wearing hijab in countries where hijab is common. So it doesn't seem to hold the magical effects scholars attribute to them. The politeness some muslimahs experience in western countries when they interract with non-muslims is due to the westerners assumption that the woman is religious and modest...and assumption apparently not made in muslim countries.
-
Caveman Doctor
No no you misunderstand. I've known you to be an awful poster for quite some time now.
Your posts are of so high quality often, that many misunderstand (take this as compliment).
Now if you can answer what I asked? if not then I know your time is so important.
-
Peace all,
For years, this sort of propaganda has been directed at us,
Which means you have a right to return fire? You have an odd concept of feminism - they patronise you so you patronise them. How exactly does this empower women?
Texts like the above are BS, full of silly stereotypes, patronizing rhetorics and anti-Western propaganda. And the ideology behind the niqab is sick. For a long time we've been bullied into not speaking up against this nonsense while those texts keep popping up everywhere.
I've become immune to the bullying, so if anyone on here wants to continue misunderstanding or attacking me, that is their problem, and I won't reply to it.
You keep banging on about being misunderstood. You have not been misunderstood, you've made yourself perfectly clear you are a hypocrite. You are patronising certain women, simply because they patronise you, which was the basis of you speaking out in the first place.
I haven't got a problem with you speaking out, I have a problem with your hypocrisy. You still stand by your mocking and patronising of many hijabis by suggesting they are brainwashed. Aside from the fallacious nature of such an argument, you can't even substantiate it in any way. What does it achieve, other than making you feel better?
Not understanding the disproportionate response Mushu. What did Leyna say that was so stupid?
She said "A person who believes that God really requires women to cover every inch of their bodies including their eyes, IS brainwashed in my opinion."
Leyna isn't using the brainwashing card solely because these women are holding a different position. She's merely stating that anyone who believes that God requires (<--absolutely critical phrase) you to cover your entire body is brainwashed.
Aside from the fact that you can't determine when someone is brainwashed?
What's stupid is that it serves no purpose to refer to someone as brainwashed they can throw the same claim back at you. What purpose does it serve? It's not an objective assertion, and it most certainly can't be supported empirically. It's a use of language to insult people.
What's also stupid is that the basis of her entire argument was that these hijabis in particular patronise non-hijabis (<-- absolutely critical point). So to then call these women 'brainwashed' is what, exactly? Respectful? Productive? Reasonable? No, it's patronising.
And can any of us here really disagree? We all believe in the qur'an here. Clearly nowhere in the qur'an does it say that God requires such a thing. So, for someone to believe that is the case, well...some level of brainwashing has to be at play here, does it not? Again, what is so "stupid" about what she said?
I do and can disagree. If their entire methodology revolves around extra-qur'anic sources, then their reasoning allows for things like hijab and niqab. They can reach this conclusion objectively, because their entire methodology is different. Of course, it's flawed, but that's irrelevant. Brainwashing suggests they've been coerced at a psychological level without their knowing. You can't prove this, so why claim it? It is patronising to call someone brainwashed. It also opens and closes the debate in one go, given that you can't actually respond to someone who says you're brainwashed.
The information our hypothetical woman is being fed is that "God requires" such and such, when that is clearly not true. God absolutely requires no such thing, full stop. The gap between her 'voluntary' decision and the incomplete information she is using to make said decision, is the space in which brainwashing finds itself.
Which is a battle each and every one of us fights every day of our lives. Misinformation leading to misunderstanding does not equate to brainwashing.
I take issue with this. Brainwashing is very much a crime. It is not just relegated to one individual. It feeds upon itself, it festers, and spreads. On one level, a woman is just choosing to believe however she believes, but on another, she is acting as a conduit through which these falsehoods are spreading themselves.
But you can't tell when someone is brainwashed into doing something. It's not as if you're making an empirical claim here. You do injustice to the entire debate by simply reducing the complexities of blind following, hierarchical religious structures and developmental psychology by using the 'brainwashing' card.
I used to have a beard (long sunni beard)and considered it obligatory. Now are you claiming I was brainwashed? I will object even now to anyone suggesting I was brainwashed into keeping a beard. My (flawed) methodology led me to believe it was necessary, and I chose that path because it seemed to be the best. I was wrong, but why does that then make me brainwashed? Now if you say 'Oh no Mushu, obviously you weren't brainwashed, I'm talking about the others', I would ask how you're objectively differentiating between such people?
My objection to Leyna's post is the double-standards she's displaying. You can't complain about the patronising rhetoric of pro-hijab literature if at the same time you patronise them by calling them brainwashed.
Peace bro Mushu,
I'd be very careful, and absolutely sure of my opinion, before throwing words like 'hypocrite' around.
I'm sure. Thanks.
What if this was the truth? I believe CD made some excellent observations above as to why it might very well be.
That these women are brainwashed? 'Might very well be' is not good enough. If you want to call me brainwashed, you better have some empirical evidence, or at least something I can objectively break down. If not, I'm gonna tell you to get lost. See why calling someone brainwashed is utterly pointless? It doesn't help the discussion and is patronising (the very thing Leyna was complaining about).
Simply throwing around 'brainwashing' ON ITS OWN is meaningless, sure; I agree with that. But, Leyna elucidated her view as to why she feels they're brainwashed. And I think she has a very valid point.
No, she hasn't. Here's her elucidation
BornAgain ? I don't feel she wears it voluntarily. It is clear from her story that she has been brainwashed into believing that the strictest form of hijab (i.e. covering everything including eyes) is what's being required. She herself describes how she used to think it's about modesty and being appropriately dressed according to time and situation, but all those righteous sisters she met in Cairo led her to the straight path and showed her that this thinking is not in accordance with God's will.
I have clearly stated that I believe the woman in that particular text has been brainwashed, and I stand by what I said. A person who believes that God really requires women to cover every inch of their bodies including their eyes, IS brainwashed in my opinion. Likewise, I believe that the majority of people who follow the Salafi cult are brainwashed. You find that intolerant? Fine with me.
Isn't that what Leyna is doing? "Taking exception to people who spout stupidity in public" ? Isn't that what you feel you are doing by replying in such a manner to Leyna taking exception to people who spout stupidity in public... Is that also fighting fire with fire?
Point taken. My apologies, Leyna.
Unless people here are making an objective claim that these women are brainwashed, then you're guilty of using insulting language. I would take offence to anyone who suggested I was brainwashed, and so would all of you who are levelling this accusation at others.
Again, unless it hasn't been made clear already, you can not complain about being patronised when you dish out the same treatment to others.
-
You keep banging on about being misunderstood. You have not been misunderstood, you've made yourself perfectly clear you are a hypocrite. You are patronising certain women, simply because they patronise you, which was the basis of you speaking out in the first place.
awesome!
-
Leyna isn't using the brainwashing card solely because these women are holding a different position. She's merely stating that anyone who believes that God requires (<--absolutely critical phrase) you to cover your entire body is brainwashed. And can any of us here really disagree? We all believe in the qur'an here. Clearly nowhere in the qur'an does it say that God requires such a thing. So, for someone to believe that is the case, well...some level of brainwashing has to be at play here, does it not?
Thanks for phrasing it so clearly.
The gap between her 'voluntary' decision and the incomplete information she is using to make said decision, is the space in which brainwashing finds itself.
Yes, exactly.
I fully respect a person who, upon reading the Qur'an, comes to the conclusion that she should wear a headscarf. Even though my personal interpretation is different, I can see how it is possible to read that out of the text.
But let me remind you that I am mainly talking about niqab here. That's what's being propagated in the text I posted, and on the whole site that was being referenced. Let there be no doubt about it ? headscarf, according to the people who run this site, is only a first step, something for women who are not ready yet, or for those who don't have the strength to wear it. But at the end of the day, niqab is the only outfit they deem proper for a Muslim woman. Among them, you are not allowed to say that you don't believe niqab is necessary or that you don't agree with the reasoning behind it.
The problem with niqab is that it takes a lot of logical twists, unreliable hadith and ignoring the wider picture in order to come to the conclusion that it is compulsory. The ones who do so only accept the views of particular hardcore Salafi scholars, even conservative Sunni scholars are not to be believed in their point of view.
So it is not a decision making process based on research, taking into proper account various interpretations and opinions and then arriving at your own. It is a process which is, from the beginning, limited and biased because it is based on the belief that you HAVE to follow scholars, and particular ones at that. It is a decision based on the belief that there is no such thing as free choice, that we are not allowed to reflect on the Qur'an and arrive at our own understanding, that obeying the scholars means to obey God. It is a decision making process that is based on not being allowed to analyze ALL points of view and ask critical questions. So how on earth can we call this free choice? There is brainwash involved and the Salafis, like any cult, are experts at brainwash techniques.
tempt
That's why I keep returning to the point that this is not simply about headscarf and choice ? what I am talking about is that the niqab is inextricably tied to the Salafi ideology, which is a dangerous, hateful, misogynist and fascist cult.As a side note, sexual harassment seems prevalent against those wearing hijab in countries where hijab is common. So it doesn't seem to hold the magical effects scholars attribute to them.
Exactly. Yet it is a point constantly being propagated.
-
Ruling on covering the face, with detailed evidence
Praise be to Allaah.
You should note that women?s observing hijab in front of non-mahram men and covering their faces is something that is obligatory as is indicated by the Book of your Lord and the Sunnah of your Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and by rational examination and analogy.
1 ? Evidence from the Qur?aan
(i)
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, headcover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband?s fathers, or their sons, or their husband?s sons, or their brothers or their brother?s sons, or their sister?s sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of feminine sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allaah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful?
The evidence from this verse that hijab is obligatory for women is as follows
(a) Allaah commands the believing women to guard their chastity, and the command to guard their chastity also a command to follow all the means of doing that. No rational person would doubt that one of the means of doing so is covering the face, because uncovering it causes people to look at it and enjoy its beauty, and thence to initiate contact. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said ?The eyes commit zina and their zina is by looking?? then he said, ?? and the private part confirms that or denies it.? Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6612; Muslim, 2657.
If covering the face is one of the means of guarding one?s chastity, then it is enjoined, because the means come under the same ruling as the ends.
(b) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning) ??and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) ??. The jayb (pl. juyoob) is the neck opening of a garment and the khimaar (veil) is that with which a woman covers her head. If a woman is commanded to draw her veil over the neck opening of her garment then she is commanded to cover her face, either because that is implied or by analogy. If it is obligatory to cover the throat and chest, then it is more appropriate to cover the face because it is the site of beauty and attraction.
(c) Allaah has forbidden showing all adornment except that which is apparent, which is that which one cannot help showing, such as the outside of one's garment. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning) ??except only that which is apparent ?? and He did not say, except that which they show of it. Some of the salaf, such as Ibn Mas?ood, al-Hasan, Ibn Sireen and others interpreted the phrase ?except only that which is apparent? as meaning the outer garment and clothes, and what shows from beneath the outer garment (i.e., the hem of one?s dress etc.). Then He again forbids showing one?s adornment except to those for whom He makes an exception. This indicates that the second adornment mentioned is something other than the first adornment. The first adornment is the external adornment which appears to everyone and cannot be hidden. The second adornment is the inward adornment (including the face). If it were permissible for this adornment to be seen by everyone, there would be no point to the general wording in the first instance and this exception made in the second.
(d) Allaah grants a concession allowing a woman to show her inward adornments to ?old male servants who lack vigour?, i.e. servants who are men who have no desire, and to small children who have not reached the age of desire and have not seen the ?awrahs of women. This indicates two things
1 ? That showing inward adornments to non-mahrams is not permissible except to these two types of people.
2 ? That the reason for this ruling is the fear that men may be tempted by the woman and fall in love with her. Undoubtedly the face is the site of beauty and attraction, so concealing it is obligatory lest men who do feel desire be attracted and tempted by her.
(e) The words (interpretation of the meaning) ?And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment? mean that a woman should not stamp her feet so as to make known hidden adornments such as anklets and the like. If a woman is forbidden to stamp her feet lest men be tempted by what they hear of the sound of her anklets etc., then what about uncovering the face?
Which is the greater source of temptation ? a man hearing the anklets of a woman whom he does not know who she is or whether she is beautiful, or whether she is young or old, or ugly or pretty? Or his looking at a beautiful youthful face that attracts him and invites him to look at it?
Every man who has any desire for women will know which of the two temptations is greater and which deserves to be hidden and concealed.
(ii)
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?And as for women past childbearing who do not expect wedlock, it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment. But to refrain (i.e. not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them. And Allaah is AllHearer, AllKnower?
The evidence from this verse is that Allaah states that there is no sin on old women who have no hope of marriage because men have no desire for them, due to their old age (if they discard their outer clothing), subject to the condition that their intention in doing so is not to make a wanton display of themselves. The fact that this ruling applies only to old women indicates that the ruling is different for young women who still hope to get married. If the ruling on discarding the outer clothing applied to all, there would be no point in singling out old women here.
The phrase ?in such a way as not to show their adornment? offers further proof that hijab is obligatory for young women who hope to marry, because usually when they uncover their faces the intention is to make a wanton display (tabarruj) and to show off their beauty and make men look at them and admire them etc. Those who do otherwise are rare, and the ruling does not apply to rare cases.
(iii)
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever OftForgiving, Most Merciful?
Ibn ?Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said ?Allaah commanded the believing women, if they go out of their houses for some need, to cover their faces from the top of their heads with their jilbaabs, and to leave one eye showing.?
The tafseer of the Sahaabah is evidence, indeed some of the scholars said that it comes under the same ruling as marfoo? reports that go back to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The comment ?and leave one eye showing? is a concession because of the need to see the way; if there is no need for that then the eye should not be uncovered.
The jilbaab is the upper garment that comes above the khimaar; it is like the abaya.
(iv) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?It is no sin on them (the Prophet?s wives, if they appear unveiled) before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brother?s sons, or the sons of their sisters, or their own (believing) women, or their (female) slaves. And (O ladies), fear (keep your duty to) Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Ever AllWitness over everything?
Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said When Allaah commanded the women to observe hijab in front of non-mahram men, he explained that they did not have to observe hijab in front of these relatives, as He explained that they are exempted in Soorat al-Noor where He said (interpretation of the meaning) ?and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands??
2 ? Evidence from the Sunnah that it is obligatory to cover the face
(i)
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said ?When any one of you proposes marriage to a woman, there is no sin on him if he looks at her, rather he should look at her for the purpose of proposing marriage even if she is unaware.? Narrated by Ahmad. The author of Majma? al-Zawaa?id said its men are the men of saheeh.
The evidence here is the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said there is no sin on the man who is proposing marriage, subject to the condition that his looking be for the purpose of proposing marriage. This indicates that the one who is not proposing marriage is sinning if he looks at a non-mahram woman in ordinary circumstances, as is the one who is proposing marriage if he looks for any purpose other than proposing marriage, such as for the purpose of enjoyment etc.
If it is said that the hadeeth does not clearly state what is being looked at, and it may mean looking at the chest etc, the response is that the man who is proposing marriage looks at the face because it is the focus for the one who is seeking beauty, without a doubt.
(ii)
When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded that women should be brought out to the Eid prayer place, they said, ?O Messenger of Allaah, some of us do not have jilbaabs.? The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ?Let her sister give her one of her jilbaabs to wear.? Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.
This hadeeth indicates that the usual practice among the women of the Sahaabah was that a woman would not go out without a jilbaab, and that if she did not have a jilbaab she would not go out. The command to wear a jilbaab indicates that it is essential to cover. And Allaah knows best.
(iii)
It was narrated in al-Saheehayn that ?Aa?ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to pray Fajr and the believing women would attend the prayer with him, wrapped in their veils, then they would go back to their homes and no one would recognize them because of the darkness. She said If the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw from the women what we have seen, he would have prevented them from coming to the mosques as the Children of Israel prevented their women.
A similar report was also narrated by ?Abd-Allaah ibn Mas?ood (may Allaah be pleased with him).
The evidence from this hadeeth covers two issues
1 ? Hijaab and covering were the practice of the women of the Sahaabah who were the best of generations and the most honourable before Allaah.
2 ? ?Aa?ishah the Mother of the Believers and ?Abd-Allaah ibn Mas?ood (may Allaah be pleased with them both), who were both known as scholars with deep insight, said that if the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had seen from women what they had seen, he would have prevented them from coming to the mosques. This was during the best generations, so what about nowadays?!
(iv)
It was narrated that Ibn ?Umar said The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said ?Whoever lets his garment drag out of pride, Allaah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.? Umm Salamah said, ?What should women do with their hems?? He said, ?Let it hang down a handspan.? She said, ?What if that shows her feet?? He said, ?Let it hang down a cubit, but no more than that.? Narrated by al-Tirmidhi; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
This hadeeth indicates that it is obligatory for women to cover their feet, and that this was something that was well known among the women of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). The feet are undoubtedly a lesser source of temptation than the face and hands, so a warning concerning something that is less serious is a warning about something that is more serious and to which the ruling applies more. The wisdom of sharee?ah means that it would not enjoin covering something that is a lesser source of temptation and allow uncovering something that is a greater source of temptation. This is an impossible contradiction that cannot be attributed to the wisdom and laws of Allaah.
(v)
It was narrated that ?Aa?ishah said The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in ihraam. When they came near us we would lower our jilbaabs from our heads over our faces, and when they had passed by we would uncover our faces. Narrated by Abu Dawood, 1562.
The words ?When they came near us we would lower our jilbaabs from our heads over our faces? indicate that it is obligatory to cover the face, because what is prescribed in ihraam is to uncover it. If there was no strong reason to prevent uncovering it, it would be obligatory to leave it uncovered even when the riders were passing by. In other words, women are obliged to uncover their faces during ihraam according to the majority of scholars, and nothing can override something that is obligatory except something else that is also obligatory. If it were not obligatory to observe hijab and cover the face in the presence of non-mahram men, there would be no reason not to uncover it in ihraam. It was proven in al-Saheehayn and elsewhere that a woman in ihraam is forbidden to wear the niqaab (face veil) and gloves.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said This is one of the things which indicate that the niqaab and gloves were known among women who were not in ihraam, which implies that they covered their faces and hands.
These are nine points of evidence from the Qur?aan and Sunnah.
The tenth is
Rational examination and analogy which form the basis of this perfect sharee?ah, which aims to help people achieve what is in their best interests and encourages the means that lead to that, and to denounce evil and block the means that lead to it.
If we think about unveiling and women showing their faces to non-mahram men, we will see that it involves many bad consequences. Even if we assume that there are some benefits in it, they are very few in comparison with its negative consequences. Those negative consequences include
1 ? Fitnah (temptation). By unveiling her face, a woman may be tempted to do things to make her face look more beautiful. This is one of the greatest causes of evil and corruption.
2 ? Taking away haya? (modesty, shyness) from women, which is part of faith and of a woman?s nature (fitrah). Women are examples of modesty, as it was said, ?more shy than a virgin in her seclusion.? Taking away a woman?s modesty detracts from her faith and the natural inclination with which she was created.
3 ? Men may be tempted by her, especially if she is beautiful and she flirts, laughs and jokes, as happens in the case of many of those who are unveiled. The Shaytaan flows through the son of Adam like blood.
4 ? Mixing of men and women. If a woman thinks that she is equal with men in uncovering her face and going around unveiled, she will not be modest and will not feel too shy to mix with men. This leads to a great deal of fitnah (temptation) and widespread corruption. Al-Tirmidhi narrated (5272) from Hamzah ibn Abi Usayd from his father that he heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say, when he was coming out of the mosque and he saw men mingling with women in the street; the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to the women, ?Draw back, and do not walk in the middle of the road; keep to the sides of the road.? Then the women used to keep so close to the walls that their garments would catch on the walls because they kept so close to them.
Classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami?, 929
Adapted from the words of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ?Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) in Risaalat al-Hijaab.
And Allaah knows best.
http//www.islamqa.com/en/ref/11774/
-
There is an important matter that is giving me sleepless nights, which is what is the meaning of the differences of the imam concerning a certain issue? If I say to someone that Shaykh So and so says that something is haraam, he says to me that is according to his madhhab or the madhhab of his country, and we follow a different madhhab that says it is halaal.
This led me to the issue of hijab. For example, my country follows the Maaliki madhhab, the imams of which say that ?that which is apparent? refers to the face and hands. In addition to that, the face-veil is virtually banned in my country, i.e., you could never wear it in your daily life, such as wearing it at work or in school. There are laws that ban it and the gloves.
Although personally I am fully convinced about the face-veil, I cannot wear it. What is your ruling on that? Because every time I listen to tapes about hijab from Shaykhs from another madhhab, I feel that my hijab is not Islamically acceptable, and I understand from their words that I am currently unveiled and making a wanton display of myself (tabarruj) and I am a cause of fitnah among this ummah. What should we do, as we are confused?.
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly
At the time of the Revelation, the Muslims learned the rulings of Islam from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) through the verses of the Holy Qur?aan and the ahaadeeth of his Sunnah. Hence there were no differences of opinion among them except with regard to some minor issues. If that happened, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would explain to them what was correct.
When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and the Sahaabah spread out to various regions to teach the people Islam, there appeared some differences with regard to some matters of fiqh which arose at different times and in different places. These differences were due to a number of reasons, which we will sum up here from the words of the scholars
1- The evidence had not reached the one who held a different opinion, and he made a mistake in forming his opinion.
2- The hadeeth had reached the scholar, but he did not regard the transmitter as trustworthy, and he thought that it went against something that was stronger, so he followed that which he thought was stronger than it.
3- The hadeeth had reached him but he forgot it.
4- The hadeeth had reached him but he understood it in a way other than the intended meaning.
5- The hadeeth reached him but it was abrogated, and he did not know the abrogating text.
6- He thought that it contradicted something that was stronger than it, whether that was a text or scholarly consensus (ijmaa?)
7- The scholar used a weak hadeeth as the basis for his ruling, or he derived the ruling by means of weak arguments.
For a detailed discussion of these reasons and others, see Raf? al-Malaam ?an al-A?immati?l-A?laam by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, and al-Khilaaf bayna al-?Ulama? Asbaabuhu wa Mawqifuna minhu by Shaykh al-?Uthaymeen.
We think that what we have mentioned about the reasons for differences among the scholars i.e., with regard to matters of fiqh, will be clear to you, in sha Allaah.
Secondly
What should the Muslim?s attitude be towards differences that arise between the scholars? In other words, which scholarly opinion should the Muslim follow in matters where they differed? The answer depends
1 ? If the Muslim is one who has studied shar?i knowledge and learned its basic principles and minor issues, and he can distinguish right from wrong with regard to scholarly views, then he has to follow that which he thinks is correct and ignore that which he thinks is wrong.
2 ? If he is one of the rank and file, or has not studied shar?i knowledge, and thus cannot distinguish between right and wrong with regard to scholarly views, then he must follow the fatwa of a scholar whose knowledge he trusts and who he believes to be trustworthy and religiously committed, whether he is from his own country or another country, and differences between scholars will not matter after that. He does not have to change what he is doing because he hears another scholar issuing a fatwa that differs from the one he is following, unless he realizes that what he learned later on is the correct view, on the basis of his confidence in the religious commitment and knowledge of the second Shaykh.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-?Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said
The one who has knowledge of evidence is required to follow the evidence, even if it goes against some of the imams, if it does not go against the consensus of the ummah.
The one who does not have any knowledge should ask the scholars, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning) ?So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not? . He should ask one who he thinks has more knowledge and is more religiously committed, but that does not mean that doing so obligatory, because the one who is better may make a mistake with regard to a particular issue, and the one who is regarded as less knowledgeable may be right with regard to it. But priority should be given to following the one who is more knowledgeable and more religiously committed.
See also the answers to questions no. 8294 and 10645.
Thirdly
If you ask about our view on the issue of covering the face, the most correct scholarly view in our opinion is that it is obligatory to cover the face in front of non-mahram men. There is a great deal of evidence and scholarly views concerning that, as among the Maalikis. Many of them said that it is not permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of non-mahram men, not because it is ?awrah but because uncovering it runs the risk of fitnah. But some of them think that it is ?awrah. Hence women, in their view, are forbidden to go out in front of non-mahram men with their faces uncovered.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen?
al-Qaadi Abu Bakr ibn al-?Arabi al-Maaliki (may Allaah have mercy on him) said
The entire woman is ?awrah, her body and her voice, so it is not permissible to uncover that except in cases of necessity, such as when testimony is given against her, or medical treatment, or asking her about her health issues. End quote.
Ahkaam al-Qur?aan by Ibn al-?Arabi (3/1578, 1579).
Al-Qurtubi (may Allaah have mercy on him), who is also Maaliki, said
This verse indicates that Allaah has given permission to ask of them from behind a screen if there is some need, or when they ask a question about something. That includes all women. Because it is a basic shar?i principle that the entire woman is ?awrah, her body and her voice ? as stated above ?it is not permissible to uncover that except in cases of necessity such as when testimony is given against her, or medical treatment, or asking her about her health issues. End quote.
In al-Jaami? li Ahkaam al-Qur?aan (14/227) it says
For more information on the views of Maaliki fuqaha? concerning the obligation for women to cover their faces, see al-Ma?yaar al-Mu?arrab by al-Wanshireesi (10/165 and 11/226 and 229), Mawaahib al-Jaleel by al-Hattaab (3/141), al-Dhakheerah by al-Quraafi (3/307) and Haashiyat al-Dasooqi ?ala al-Sharh al-Kabeer (2/55).
We have discussed this issue and its evidence in more than one answer on this site. Please see the answers to questions no. 11774, 12525, 13998, 21134 and 21536.
Fourthly
With regard to what you mention about the laws in your country forbidding women to cover their faces, that is something that makes us feel very sad, to hear that covering and chastity are being opposed and wanton display and unveiling are being encouraged everywhere, especially when that happens in a country that is supposed to be Muslim.
If the laws forbid women to cover, and you fear persecution because of covering your faces, then there is no sin on you if you do not do it in that case, so long as that is based on necessity. So a woman should not go out of her house with her face uncovered except in cases of necessity. If she can break the law and put up with a little bit of hassle, let her do so for there is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience towards the Creator.
See also the answer to question no. 2198 and 45672.
And Allaah knows best.
http//www.islamqa.com/en/ref/68152/
-
As I browse some of the answers I found this phrase the most correct ruling, this was about the ruling of covering woman face, while I found that most scolars say the oppisite regarding this issue, I found it in the "al-fiqh alaa almathahib al arbaa'a by abdelrahman aljazeeri".
Then how come the shiekh did not mention this and just state one opinion, I can understand if the sheikh sees the strongest opinion for that is his, but the others too see theirs as well. Then why did not he tell us that this is based on his opinion and not the majority of scholars.
Praise be to Allaah.
This phrase, ?the most correct opinion?, means that the opinion chosen is the strongest opinion in terms of evidence.
It does not mean that it is the view of the majority of fuqaha?; it may be so, or it may be the view of some of them.
hmm
The view which we chose ? which is that it is obligatory for women to cover their faces ? is what is indicated by the Qur?aan and Sunnah, and was the practice of the believing women for many centuries.It is also the view expressed in fatwas by contemporary scholars such as ?Abd al-?Azeez ibn Baaz, Ibn ?Uthaymeen, the scholars of the Standing Committee (al-Lajnah al-Daa?imah) and others.
The Standing Committee, under the leadership of Shaykh ?Abd al-?Azeez ibn Baaz, was asked the following question Is the woman?s face ?awrah?
They replied
?Yes, the woman?s face is ?awrah according to the more correct of the two scholarly opinions.?
Majallat al-Buhooth al-Islamiyyah, 24/75.
It should be noted that when there is a difference of opinion, Muslims are obliged to refer to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as Allaah commanded when He said (interpretation of the meaning)
?(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allaah and in the Last Day?
By referring to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), it becomes clear that the Muslim woman is obliged to cover her face in front of non-mahram men. There follows some of the evidence for that
1 ? Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever OftForgiving, Most Merciful?
Al-Bukhaari narrated that ?Aa?ishah said ?May Allaah have mercy on the Muhaajir women! When Allaah revealed the words ?and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)? they tore their aprons and covered their faces with them.? See also question no. 6991.
2 ? Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent?
In this verse, Allaah forbids showing all adornment except that which is apparent, which is that which a woman cannot avoid showing, such as the outer garment. Hence Allaah said ?except only that which is apparent?, and He did not say, except that which they show. Then He again forbade showing any adornment, except to those for whom an exception is made ?. This indicates that the adornment mentioned in the second phrase is not like the adornment mentioned in the first; the first adornment is that which appears in all cases and cannot be hidden, and the second adornment is that which is hidden, and is done deliberately . If it were permissible for everyone to see the hidden adornment, then there would be not point of speaking in general terms about the first and making an exception in the case of the second adornment.
3 ? Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever OftForgiving, Most Merciful?
Ibn ?Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said ?Allaah commanded the believing women, when they go out of their houses for some need, to cover their faces from the top of the head with the jilbaab, and to leave only one eye showing.?
There is a great deal of evidence. Please see also questions no. 13646, 21536, 23496
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
http//www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12525
-
I used to know a friend who was a hijabi. And would waste no time in pointing out how great it is to be one and how it is one of the biggest things a woman can do to show her devotion to God, how anyone not being one was definitely on the wrong path and so on. If I was to respond to her honestly, a friend to a friend, woman to another woman, calling a spade a spade saying you know, you may have been told this from every angle since growing up so it may not be surprising that you've grown up believing this but I think you are evidently wrong because "insert quranic stance on hijab". Would this be mocking, patronising and hypocritical? Because I brought up what I think is a potential factor for her reasons for believing what she does?
If she responds "Nay, ye foul woman, I have read into this just recently and lo I have realised this is the way to go" and I respond alright, what persuaded you to realise? Would I be wrong/mocking/patronising/hypocritical to have brought up for discussion another potential factor that may have indoctrinated her into thinking a certain way? Because clearly, she isn't thinking critically?
Likewise if someone says, "The Islamic God really requires women to cover every inch of their bodies including their eyes" clearly something has indoctrinated the person into believing this. Whether it's a flawed methodology involving extra quranic sources, whether it's the neighbour, whether it's just whatever. External sources are the obvious factors of such indoctrination. We'll rarely if ever have an eskimo spontaneously spouting the above sentence, well he might but change Islamic God to cold weather and women to people and so on. These external sources of indoctrination rely on any and all weapons in their arsenal to spread their beliefs. Guilt, pressure, superior numbers whatever. Just because someone follows a flawed methodology doesn't mean he wasn't indoctrinated into it. Whether by choice or whether by force. Someone or something did it, taught someone to believe something without critical examination.
-
Peace everyone
I haven't seen a human being on earth that is not brainwashed. If anyone knows a human being on earth that is not brainwashed send me a Pm, and I will send you a Superman costume so you can wear it when you go to school ;D Haha. Just kidding.
Isn't everyone brainwashed, more or less? I don't know about you, but I constantly delete old programming, and free myself from false ideas and beliefs. I think the search for truth will last our whole life. And brainwashing isn't limited to just religion. People can be brainwashed when it comes to politics, psychology, sociology, medicine, science, technology, statistics, economy and lots of other topics. Truth be told.
-
Aside from the fact that you can't determine when someone is brainwashed?
What's stupid is that it serves no purpose to refer to someone as brainwashed they can throw the same claim back at you. What purpose does it serve? It's not an objective assertion, and it most certainly can't be supported empirically. It's a use of language to insult people.
What's also stupid is that the basis of her entire argument was that these hijabis in particular patronise non-hijabis (<-- absolutely critical point). So to then call these women 'brainwashed' is what, exactly? Respectful? Productive? Reasonable? No, it's patronising.
I do and can disagree. If their entire methodology revolves around extra-qur'anic sources, then their reasoning allows for things like hijab and niqab. They can reach this conclusion objectively, because their entire methodology is different. Of course, it's flawed, but that's irrelevant. Brainwashing suggests they've been coerced at a psychological level without their knowing. You can't prove this, so why claim it? It is patronising to call someone brainwashed. It also opens and closes the debate in one go, given that you can't actually respond to someone who says you're brainwashed.
Which is a battle each and every one of us fights every day of our lives. Misinformation leading to misunderstanding does not equate to brainwashing.
But you can't tell when someone is brainwashed into doing something. It's not as if you're making an empirical claim here. You do injustice to the entire debate by simply reducing the complexities of blind following, hierarchical religious structures and developmental psychology by using the 'brainwashing' card.
Not much needs to be added to what savage_carrot said. Calculated misinformation IS brainwashing. It happens all the time, and not just from within religious structures.
If by 'objective' assertions, you mean we have to somehow be able to cleave someone's head open, and feel around in their brain for evidence of 'brainwash' wrinkles, then obviously 90% of message board discussions would never take place. This is part of debating. Not everything in debate is a formal geometrical proof. Judgments and estimations are made, reasons for motivations are surmised, etc. If the recipient of the 'brainwashed' claim chooses to feel offended, insulted, patronized, etc. well then, that's on them. We live in the real world. It ain't pretty. Thick skins are needed and whatnot. Similarly, if the recipient of the claim deems the 'brainwashed' term a total non-starter, as if to imply that they are somehow intellectually above the effects of brainwashing, then again, that's on them. If this person wants to act as if they are quite possibly the first person in human history to be impervious to the effects of brainwashing, then by all means, I would let them. And then slowly walk away.
I used to have a beard (long sunni beard)and considered it obligatory. Now are you claiming I was brainwashed? I will object even now to anyone suggesting I was brainwashed into keeping a beard. My (flawed) methodology led me to believe it was necessary, and I chose that path because it seemed to be the best. I was wrong, but why does that then make me brainwashed? Now if you say 'Oh no Mushu, obviously you weren't brainwashed, I'm talking about the others', I would ask how you're objectively differentiating between such people?
Unless people here are making an objective claim that these women are brainwashed, then you're guilty of using insulting language. I would take offence to anyone who suggested I was brainwashed, and so would all of you who are levelling this accusation at others.
If you wore a beard because you were told that God requires it of you, then yes. You were brainwashed. I'm sorry if that offends you, or if it's patronizing, or if you find it insulting. None of those visceral reactions changes the reality that you were, at least with regard to that issue, brainwashed. And again, no 'objective' assertion (whatever that means). Just a judgment based on ample amounts of experience and evidence. It's possible you were born and one day somehow magically came to this conclusion completely on your own. I'll take my chances and assume you are part of the 99.999999% who believed it required because someone (either directly or indirectly) told you it was.
Here's the thing as David_K said, we are all brainwashed to some degree. It is not some grand indictment on our character. It is the way of the world. The institutions of religion, of mass media, of government, are in large part successful because they are formalized brainwashing mechanisms. The institutions are only as good as their constituents' assent to their dictates.
If you haven't already, I highly suggest you read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. Brilliant read on the Propaganda Model of government/mass media; its points largely hold true for religion as well. We cannot fully escape brainwashing; it is unavoidable. That holds true for all of us. Not one person's thoughts are 100% original. Everyone, one way or another, operates on certain beliefs that were handed to them. Sometimes these beliefs/assumptions were forcibly fed to them, maybe fed to them in a sweet delicious package. Or perhaps they weren't fed by force at all; maybe the belief was simply sitting there appearing tantalizing (in large part because of the calculated goal of some institution which stood to benefit) waiting for some unsuspecting passerby to take a bite.
We cannot be completely rid of brainwashing. At best, we can hope to minimize its effects, counter it with tools like critical thinking and distribution of data that more accurately fit the facts. We can, like Leyna did, point it out where we find it, in an attempt to root it out. If a few people, gasp, feel offended or patronized along the way, then so be it. It's the world we live in.
-
Jack and Caveman Doctor
If some one does not agree with thoughts of Leyna he is awful poster, another one should take care while calling her hypocrite or so, but when she insults some one its just fine, when she hurts the feelings of million women wearing Hijab as brain washed that is modern enlightenment.
What a load of non-sense. No one has said that just because you don't agree with a certain poster itself makes you an awful poster. You're an awful poster because you are totally devoid of all logic, and instead of posting something using REASON, you opted to troll this thread with ill-thought nonsense. If you have a logical argument, great let's hear it. First time for everything and all.
I am the least bit interested in the WHO, I am a lot more interested in the WHAT/content. Also, I never said that Mushu doesn't have the right to call someone a hypocrite. It seemed to me his arguments were emotionally based, so I was making sure this was his actual stance.This is just an awful hypocritical stand.
You have no leg to stand on. No one in this thread has said anything about 'modern enlightenment'. But I understand since you are incapable of coming up with an argument any substance that you have to resort to making stuff up.