[jeockammece]

came accross this little gem:

http://susiesbigadventure.blogspot.c...hind-veil.html

I particularly liked this bit:

"It just amazes me how many women especially, despise my choice of dress. Yet, would they rather their husband's secretary to be dressed like me or otherwise?
Would they rather the waitress serving the table at their anniversary dinner, be dressed like me or otherwise?
Is it me and my sisters who are turning their husband's head, or attracting their boyfriends??
Is it me and my sisters who have led their daughters to anorexia, or their sons to pornography?
Is it me and my sisters whose bodies and faces solicit their husband's/boyfriend's attention on every corner? Is it me and my sisters who have aroused that man to rape or harass their sisters?

Whose mode of 'dress' is truly oppressive and harmful to women??"

The blog itself is by a non muslim i think and has a lot of negative responses so maybe some might wish to respond?
They havent grasped the fact that shes not trying to convince them to wear it , but explaining why it shoudlnt be illegal

[gennnniiikk]

absolute gem!

[FoetAgerhot46]

It is truly a sad day when non-Muslims defend the right for our sisters to dress themselves honourably when certain Muslims will scream from the rooftops that the niqaab is an alien concept to Islam.

May Allah grant the sister who wrote the blog hidaayah and grant us najaat.

[Beragagnu]

There is no need to defend anything..just wear whatever you want without having the need to go to lengths about why u wear.

That was a poorly thought out defense to be honest. I for one certainly don't wish secretaries wore niqaab or waitresses ..I'm not that insecure to be honest. Only an insecure woman with a husband who has wandering eyes would wish that. I don't know about you all, but she might just be taking the mickey so to speak.

[stastony]

There is no need to defend anything..just wear whatever you want without having the need to go to lengths about why u wear.

That was a poorly thought out defense to be honest. I for one certainly don't wish secretaries wore niqaab or waitresses ..I'm not that insecure to be honest. Only an insecure woman with a husband who has wandering eyes would wish that. I don't know about you all, but she might just be taking the mickey so to speak.

I agree. And i agree its a bizarre defense. Also i agree its a poorly written article, from an equally poorly educated contributer

who has a penchant for western sources like the Washington Post and non muslim blogs to prove his position on muslim issues.

Bit bizarra a man (OP) so worried about female dress outside the obligatory while the woman (yourself) saying its no big deal ?

I agree - must be insecurity, no respect for women or for muslims outside the little puritanical box. so a prioritisation of obscure issues like niqab become obsessive like, just like the evangelical Puritanical Christians.

[gennnniiikk]

i thought the article was very good from a rational point of view. it is good to have such thinking plus having the knowledge of the fiqh rulings on niqaab.

[jeockammece]

So we're supposed to be ok with European niqab bans and our sisters shouldn't defend their right to wear it?

[stastony]

So we're supposed to be ok with European niqab bans and our sisters shouldn't defend their right to wear it?

we shouldnt keep quoting non-muslim sources to defend extreme positions on muslim issues

[jeockammece]

we shouldnt keep quoting non-muslim sources to defend extreme positions on muslim issues

firstly what is wrong with quoting non muslim sources?

secondly, what is an extreme position? Are you calling the niqaab extreme?

thirdly are you suggesting we shouldnt care about the niqaab ban which is clearly anotehr attack on islam through "democracy" AKA mob rule

[jeockammece]

where are the deobandi's to defend these attacks against teh niqaab?


"3.2. The obligation of covering the face

While the madhhab has not completely forbidden a male’s gaze towards a female’s face when there exists absolutely no fear of attraction, the woman has no way of knowing whether the gazes directed towards her are free of desire or not, especially when out in public. The Hanafi madhhab has, in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah, thus obliged a woman to cover her face in front of strangers.[30]

This ruling is indicated to by Imam Muhammad in his Al-Asl,[31] which forms the basis of the Zahir al-Riwayah of the madhhab. This is the authoritative position of the Hanafi School, as adopted by major Hanafi legal masters over the centuries, such as: Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333 AH),[32] Hakim al-Shahid (d. 334 AH),[33] Jassas al-Razi (d. 370 AH),[34] Al-Natifi (d. 446 AH),[35] Qadi Khan (d. 592 AH),[36] Al-Marghinani — author of Al-Hidayah (d. 593 AH),[37] Al-Kirmani (d. 600 AH approx.),[38] Mahmud Al-Bukhari — author of al-Muhit (d. 616 AH),[39] Al-Sunnami (d. after 700 AH),[40] Al-Sighnaqi (d. 714 AH),[41] Al-Qurashi (d. 854 AH),[42] Ibn al-Humam (d. 861 AH),[43] Al-Quhustani (d. 950 AH),[44] Ibn Nujaym (d. 970 AH),[45] Sinan al-Khalwati (d. 989 AH),[46] Umar ibn Nujaym (d. 1005 AH),[47] Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari (d. 1014 AH),[48] Al-Shurunbulali (d. 1069 AH),[49] Shaykh Zada (d. 1078 AH),[50] ‘Abd al-Halim (d. 1088 AH),[51] Al-Haskafi (d. 1088 AH),[52] Al-Tahtawi (d. 1231 AH),[53] Ibn ‘Abidin (d. 1252 AH),[54] ‘Abid al-Sindhi (d. 1257 AH),[55] ‘Abd al-Hay al-Laknawi (d. 1304 AH),[56] Al-Sawati (d. 1346 AH),[57] Al-Nahlawi (d. 1350 AH).[58]

4. Conclusion

We can thus conclude that it is obligatory on a man to lower his gaze from the face of strange women under all circumstances, just as it is binding on a woman to cover her face in the presence of strange men.

Allah Most High knows best.

Husain Kadodia
14 Ramadan 1429 / 14 September 2008
Durban, South Africa

قال إمام الحرمين الجويني (ت 478 هـ): اتفق المسلمون على منع النساء من الخروج سافرات الوجوه

Imam al-Haramayn (d. 478 AH) said:
“There exists consensus of the Muslims on preventing women from emerging with their faces uncovered.”

(Mughni l-Muhtaj 4/203, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 7/19"

http://www.deoband.org/2009/04/fiqh/...anafi-madhhab/


according to teh deobandi ulema its waajib in hanafi fiqh so why isnt anyone defending this? I thought this was a deobandi forum? What happened here? its full of brillos

[gennnniiikk]

abu fatimah:
the niqab has been debated to death on this forum. through rulings of fiqh, rational arguments etc. perhaps people don't want to argue with this lot anymore? and the article is written by a muslim who does not own that blog.

[jeockammece]

I'm not talking about debating as to whether its waajib or mustahabb, but calling it extreme and telling people not to bother defending your sisters right to wear it is not the same as saying that you hold the position that its mustahabb as opposed to waajib.

Surely these people cannot be muqalids of the deobandi ulema who say this. Whats teh use debating on how we should make taqleed if your not actually making taqleed?

[FoetAgerhot46]

I also saw the comment inferring that the niqaab is an extremist position and decided to pass over it. It makes me boil inside when I read such a pathetic comment like that and I am unable to trust myself when replying. Due to that I left it.

Sometimes a jaahil comment just needs to be ignored.

[jeockammece]

I also saw the comment inferring that the niqaab is an extremist position and decided to pass over it. It makes me boil inside when I read such a pathetic comment like that and I am unable to trust myself when replying. Due to that I left it.

Sometimes a jaahil comment just needs to be ignored.

may Allah give me the stregnth and ability to do this. Ameen. This is true tassawuf

[gennnniiikk]

I'm not talking about debating as to whether its waajib or mustahabb, but calling it extreme and telling people not to bother defending your sisters right to wear it is not the same as saying that you hold the position that its mustahabb as opposed to waajib.

Surely these people cannot be muqalids of the deobandi ulema who say this. Whats teh use debating on how we should make taqleed if your not actually making taqleed?

you leave no attempt to insult muqallids and taqleed. where on earth did Equalizer say he is deobandi? and what if a deobandi comes and says i don't think this ruling on niqab is right...yet he calls himself deobandi...what will you do then?
i meant debating between people who follow different schools or different ideologies...is sister idil also a deobandi?
give yourself a break.

[jeockammece]

Allahu musta'aan, how many times will I need to repeat myself, Allah has sent you to test my patience severely

I took up issue with calling the niqaab extreme and saying we shoudlnt defend our sisters right to wear it. The only difference of oppinion is whether its an obligation or "merely" a good thing. Eiether way its good and we should defend it inshAllah. To conside rit anything except mustahabb or waajib is to leave the oppinions of the salaf and would become an innovation, as noone from the salaf held it to be mubah, makruuh or haraam. There is ijma on it being a good thing, the only difference is on "how good".

Im not telling you to believe it is waajib but you must consider it "at least" mustahabb and should defend it.

Sister idil disagreed wth the reasoning of the sister in the blog and not to do with the niqaab itself. But i would suggets that although sister idil is married to a decent righteous and trustworthy man, that many in the west arent like this. There are now even dating websites taht you arent allowed to join unless you are married and its for arranging affairs between married couples. Many men would like to commit adultery with their recptionist, if they are even married in the first place as 50% of marriages end in divorce. So in society immodesty is rampant and a beautiful girl in niqaab wont be a fitnah for teh weak men in westenr society. Its a valid point

and where did i insult muaqlids? I quoted their position as proof, thats not insulting them is it? I believe in taqleed akhi

[gennnniiikk]

and where did i insult muaqlids? I quoted their position as proof, thats not insulting them is it? I believe in taqleed akhi

here:

Surely these people cannot be muqalids of the deobandi ulema who say this. Whats teh use debating on how we should make taqleed if your not actually making taqleed?

and that was after i told you that the reason why deobandis on this forum didnt jump to refute sister idil and equalizer is because it has been done tons of time before with other people on other threads. yet you make sister idil and equalizer to be deobandis and say 'oh look they are disagreeing with what deobandi ulema say...surely they do taqlid of the deobandis right...what use is your taqleed that you keep on harping about when you dont do it yourself. practice what you preach.'
need some more?

[jeockammece]

here:

and that was after i told you that the reason why deobandis on this forum didnt jump to refute sister idil and equalizer is because it has been done tons of time before with other people on other threads. yet you make sister idil and equalizer to be deobandis and say 'oh look they are disagreeing with what deobandi ulema say...surely they do taqlid of the deobandis right...what use is your taqleed that you keep on harping about when you dont do it yourself. practice what you preach.'
need some more?

no akhi I was asking why deobandis werent responding. And not to sister idil, I didnt see her say anything against teh niqaab. Then you said because the niqaab has already been debated. So I said yes but its been debated whetehr its waajib or mustahabb, there is no ikhtilaaf on it being good and being defended. Im just asking where are the deobandis to refute this.

And how did teh quote you provide insult muqalids?

[gennnniiikk]

no akhi I was asking why deobandis werent responding. And not to sister idil, I didnt see her say anything against teh niqaab. Then you said because the niqaab has already been debated. So I said yes but its been debated whetehr its waajib or mustahabb, there is no ikhtilaaf on it being good and being defended. Im just asking where are the deobandis to refute this.

And how did teh quote you provide insult muqalids?

look. i'll explain it one last time. there are people on this forum who arent deobandis. those who are r those who hold a similar view (like i do) didn't bother to refute her and equalizer because it has been done tons of time before on other threads.
i suppose only to you your comment wasn't insulting. does that make it less insulting or not insulting at all? nope.

[jeockammece]

look. i'll explain it one last time. there are people on this forum who arent deobandis. those who are r those who hold a similar view (like i do) didn't bother to refute her and equalizer because it has been done tons of time before on other threads.
i suppose only to you your comment wasn't insulting. does that make it less insulting or not insulting at all? nope.

I'll ask you again. How was the quote insulting

So defending the niaqqb isnt worth your time but engaging in heavy discussion/accusations with me is well worth the effort?