[autolubitelone]

Is it not enough that the Ummahaatul Mu'mineen and the Sahaabiyaat covered up during the time of the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam and the Sahabah?

What is important to understand is WHY they covered up. They were the exception, not the norm and it was to protect the Holy Prophet (s) from his enemies who tried to spread lies about his wives.

[BruceCroucshs]

What is important to understand is WHY they covered up. They were the exception, not the norm and it was to protect the Holy Prophet (s) from his enemies who tried to spread lies about his wives.

Why they did whatever they did, whenever they did it, however they did it...salavation for us lies in walking in those footsteps.

[bestonline]

The fact is,the niqab does have a place in Islam. Now we can argue about it's status(fardh/wajib/etc) all day long but the argument that its merely cultural is idiotic.

[bestonline]

As-salamu 'alaykum

In the Shafi'i school it is considered a Fard according to those scholars who take the opinions of Nawawi and Rafi'i as authorative. For those who take the opinions of Imam ibn Hajr al-Haythami to be authorative, it would be considered Recommended with the possibility of being Fard under certain circumstances.

As for our beloved brother London786, we should be careful before we talk. Did you know that many of the early major Maliki Imams considered it Makruh. I have also seen this quoted as the mashhur of the school. However, the ruling would differ in front of non-Muslims.

considered the niqab makruh?? which scholars? any references?

[Goalseexere]

Because he never said it wasn't wajib.

Accrording to your religion a wajib act is basically something you have to do but if left, does not take you out of the fold of Islam. So if he gave permission to show the face then clearly he did not believe it was wajib.

[simmons latex mattress]

Accrording to your religion a wajib act is basically something you have to do but if left, does not take you out of the fold of Islam. So if he gave permission to show the face then clearly he did not believe it was wajib.

But what you don't get is that he didn't allow it.

[VQdeochratis]

Assalamualaikum...

"References: ma’ariful-Quran, vol. 7, pgs. 217-219., Fathul-Bari, vol. 10. pg. 677 Hadith # 4795, Umdatul-Qari. Vol. 19, Fataawa Rahimiya, vol.4 pg. 94-106"

I have managed to get the details from the Ma'ariful-Quran and the Fathul-Bari. However, I am unable to get a link to the said Umdatul-Qari and Fataawa Rahimiya.

Could anyone please help me in finding links into these Umdatul-Qari n Fataawa Rahimimiya?

JZK

[Qahtwugc]

What is important to understand is WHY they covered up. They were the exception, not the norm and it was to protect the Holy Prophet (s) from his enemies who tried to spread lies about his wives.

Proof?

[rushiddink]

What is important to understand is WHY they covered up. They were the exception, not the norm and it was to protect the Holy Prophet (s) from his enemies who tried to spread lies about his wives.

That is absolutely incorrect

I remember a hadith of Aisha where she daid that women veiled their faces once a particular ayah of the Quran was revealed

Some one more knowledgable could give the exact hadith

[Ikhqgvas]

Here's another interesting read I've found. --> http://muttaqun.com/niqab.html

The hadeeth brother ahmad12 is referring to is in the link as well.

Hadith - Bukhari 6:282

'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): 'They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,' was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."

[maysubers]

The hadeeth brother ahmad12 is referring to is in the link as well.

Hadith - Bukhari 6:282

'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): 'They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,' was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."

The Arabic makes no mention of 'faces' at all.

In my opinion, a good place to start such an investigation is the following verse:

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent [...]

24:31

What is the meaning of 'which is apparent'? I believe there was a difference of opinion between the sahaba and within the tabi'een as well. Some held the opinion that this refers to the outer garments and one eye to see, whilst others considered it to mean the hands and face. I can't remember exactly, but I think Ibn Kathir was of the former opinion and Al Qurtubi and some other commentators were of the latter. Yusuf Qaradawi (not sure what people's opinion of him is) was also of the opinion that this verse was referring to the hands and face. It comes down to what you find more compelling.

[85IbLcwQ]

Assalaamu 'alaykum

opinions of Imams? fataawa? wajib/not wajib???

Is it not enough that the Ummahaatul Mu'mineen and the Sahaabiyaat covered up during the time of the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam and the Sahabah?

...surely this should be enough for even those who do not "blindly follow" a madhab?

I find it very unsettling that there are ppl who are speaking on the Imams' behalf and leading others to believe *they* commanded their female adherents to wear the Niqaab.I've learnt through this thread they did no such thing much less saw it as ''waajib''.My mind is struggling to digest this bit of info.

[bestonline]

Here's another interesting read I've found. --> http://muttaqun.com/niqab.html

The hadeeth brother ahmad12 is referring to is in the link as well.

Hadith - Bukhari 6:282

'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): 'They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,' was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."

The Arabic makes no mention of 'faces' at all.

In my opinion, a good place to start such an investigation is the following verse:

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent [...]

24:31

What is the meaning of 'which is apparent'? I believe there was a difference of opinion between the sahaba and within the tabi'een as well. Some held the opinion that this refers to the outer garments and one eye to see, whilst others considered it to mean the hands and face. I can't remember exactly, but I think Ibn Kathir was of the former opinion and Al Qurtubi and some other commentators were of the latter. Yusuf Qaradawi (not sure what people's opinion of him is) was also of the opinion that this verse was referring to the hands and face. It comes down to what you find more compelling.

Can someone please clarify the point Joshimitsu made of whether the word 'faces' is mentioned in the actual Arabic text or not?

Joshimitsu, could you also clarify th underlined bit,please.

do you mean one group deemed the face should be covered and the other group deemed the face not to be covered?

[career-builder]

http://classicalislamgroup.co.uk/ind.../s24-v30to31-4

[maysubers]

Salam,

do you mean one group deemed the face should be covered and the other group deemed the face not to be covered?

Yes, Ibn Kathir believed the face should be covered except for one eye to see. This is in his tafsir of Surah Nur which can be found online. Al Qurtubi's commentary of the same surah says that 'apparent' in the verse in question means the hands and face i.e. they can be left uncovered. I can't confirm this myself as I'm quoting verbatim from a secondary source. I mentioned Qaradawi before because he writes a bit about this topic in his book 'The Lawful and Prohibited' where he also suggests that several commentators held the view that the hands and face can be left uncovered.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/B...hat%20Is%20Not

[Pwy9egVW]

Can someone please clarify the point Joshimitsu made of whether the word 'faces' is mentioned in the actual Arabic text or not?

Joshimitsu, could you also clarify th underlined bit,please.

do you mean one group deemed the face should be covered and the other group deemed the face not to be covered?

here's the arabic
حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو نعيم ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏إبراهيم بن نافع ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏الحسن بن مسلم ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏صفية بنت شيبة ‏ ‏أن ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏رضي الله عنها ‏
‏كانت تقول ‏ ‏لما نزلت هذه الآية ‏
‏وليضربن بخمرهن على جيوبهن ‏
‏أخذن أزرهن فشققنها من قبل الحواشي فاختمرن بها ‏

and this page explains it:
http://www.muhajabah.com/khimar.htm

[Lgcjqxlw]

The Arabic makes no mention of 'faces' at all.

With all due respect, but you are wrong. Khimar means something that covers face and in the hadith "fakhtamarna" mean covering faces. I read the article on your link but doesn't come true with authentic text. There are many, for the sake of brevity here is an example from Sahabiyat - please sincerely try to see how they understood the word "khimar".

رواه ابن أبي خيثمة ، من طريق إسماعيل بن أبي خالد ، عن أمه قالت : « كنا ندخل على
أم المؤمنين يوم التروية ، فقلت لها : يا أم المؤمنين ، هنا امرأة تأبى أن تغطيَ
وجهها وهي محرمة ، فرفعت عائشة خمارها من صدرها فغطَّت به وجهها »
Ibn Abi Khaythamah reports from the way of Ismaa’eel ibn Abi Khaalid from his mother that she said,

“We entered upon Umm Al-Mu’minīn on Yawm At-Tarwayah and we said to her, ‘Oh Mother of the Believers! Here is a woman who refuses to cover her face and she is a Muhrimah (in ihrām). So ‘Aa’ishah lifted her Khimār from her chest, and covered the woman’s face with it.”

This hadīth has been mentioned in At-Talkhees Al-Habeer of Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalaani 2/272 or number 1083 in some prints. The chain of this hadīth is strong. Notice here that she covered the woman’s face with her khimār. This is proof that the Sahabiyyat knew the khimār was meant to cover the face just as we stated previously. Furthermore, here is a woman who did not want to cover, so ‘Aa’ishah took it upon herself to cover the woman, as this would be changing an evil with her own hand. This is in compliance with the hadīth of the Nabi (SAWS) (Sallalllahu ‘Alayhi wa Sallam) when he said, “When you see a munkar (evil), change it with your hand…” In this hadīth is proof that you must cover your face in front of non-mahram men. (Abul Layth)

[Lgcjqxlw]

and this page explains it:

It doesn't. They just completely refuse what Ibn Hajar had to say about the word:

Ibn Hajar, who wrote a commentary on Sahih Bukhari says that "ikhtamarna" should be translated as "covered themselves" and that it means "covered their faces". But this is his opinion. There is no word "faces" in the Arabic text of this hadith.

[bestonline]

Salam,



Yes, Ibn Kathir believed the face should be covered except for one eye to see. This is in his tafsir of Surah Nur which can be found online. Al Qurtubi's commentary of the same surah says that 'apparent' in the verse in question means the hands and face i.e. they can be left uncovered. I can't confirm this myself as I'm quoting verbatim from a secondary source. I mentioned Qaradawi before because he writes a bit about this topic in his book 'The Lawful and Prohibited' where he also suggests that several commentators held the view that the hands and face can be left uncovered.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/B...hat%20Is%20Not

and this page explains it:
http://www.muhajabah.com/khimar.htm

Is it me or is the link provided by Brother MuhammadNur and what it states in there about Ibn Kathirs opinion being totally opposite to what Brother Joshimitsu posted in his post about the opinion of Ibn Kathir??

Taken from the link provided by MuhammadNur:

The hadith is cited to "prove" that the women obeyed Surah an-Nur ayah 31 by wearing niqab. But it does not prove this. Imam Qurtubi and Imam ibn Kathir have provided an explicit description of what the khimar is to cover. This is the forehead, hair, ears, neck, and upper chest. THEY DO NOT MENTION THE FACE. And neither does the hadith.

So what is the opinion of Ibn Kathir?

[maysubers]

With all due respect, but you are wrong.

With all due respect, if you're agreeing that the hadith in Arabic makes no mention of faces then I am in fact right. If you believe the hadith is referring to faces, that's your opinion. But the translation is a bit off as 'faces' is simply not there.

Is it me or is the link provided by Brother MuhammadNur and what it states in there about Ibn Kathirs opinion being totally opposite to what Brother Joshimitsu posted in his post about the opinion of Ibn Kathir??

Taken from the link provided by MuhammadNur:

The hadith is cited to "prove" that the women obeyed Surah an-Nur ayah 31 by wearing niqab. But it does not prove this. Imam Qurtubi and Imam ibn Kathir have provided an explicit description of what the khimar is to cover. This is the forehead, hair, ears, neck, and upper chest. THEY DO NOT MENTION THE FACE. And neither does the hadith.

So what is the opinion of Ibn Kathir?

Sorry bro, I think I might have got a bit confused. Here's from his tafseer:

"(and not to show off their adornment except that which is apparent,) means, they should not show anything of their adornment to non-Mahram men except for whatever it is impossible to hide. Ibn Mas`ud said: "Such as clothes and outer garments,'' Meaning what the Arab women used to wear of the veil which covered their clothes and whatever showed from underneath the outer garment. There is no blame on her for this, because this is something that she cannot conceal. Similar to that is what appears of her lower garment and what she cannot conceal. Al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin, Abu Al-Jawza', Ibrahim An-Nakha`i and others also had the same view as Ibn Mas`ud."

The mentioning if Ibn Masud led me to believe that Ibn Kathir held the opinion that the face and hands should be covered. But in the next section of commentary he says:

"(and to draw their veils all over their Juyub) means that they should wear the outer garment in such a way as to cover their chests and ribs, so that they will be different from the women of the Jahiliyyah, who did not do that but would pass in front of men with their chests completely uncovered, and with their necks, forelocks, hair and earrings uncovered."

Here, no mention is made of covering the face.

Sorry again if I confused anyone. Perhaps someone with greater knowledge can confirm what the opinion of Ibn Kathir was on this issue.