[deandrecooke]

With some minor differences, there is an agreement in the four madhabs that the awrah of a slave woman is like that of a man, from the navel to the knees. A slave woman can thus be in public and expose her breasts. There are also rules in fiqh for what part of a slave woman you are allowed to look at, and if the awrah outside of prayer is the same as that in prayer. However, if we were living in the time of the khalifa of Umar ibn al-Khattab , the sahaba would have walked in the streets and passed slave women with no veil on their head, and their breasts exposed. This is the view of the four madhabs.

There are some people today who claim that women not wearing a hijab, but dressing modestly otherwise, contravenes Islamic principles, etc. etc. Or you hear people trying to argue for an Islamic view of modesty without taking a classical distinction between free women and slave women into account. What is the true aim of the hijab in light of the differences between slave and free women? What if a woman today doesn't wish to wear hijab, and argues based on such a precedent, that faith is not connected to modesty?

What do you think?

[Cheeniandab]

Can a slave ever be a muslim legally? As in was born a muslim?

[AgindyMinnife]

With some minor differences, there is an agreement in the four madhabs that the awrah of a slave woman is like that of a man, from the navel to the knees. A slave woman can thus be in public and expose her breasts. There are also rules in fiqh for what part of a slave woman you are allowed to look at, and if the awrah outside of prayer is the same as that in prayer. However, if we were living in the time of the khalifa of Umar ibn al-Khattab , the sahaba would have walked in the streets and passed slave women with no veil on their head, and their breasts exposed. This is the view of the four madhabs.

There are some people today who claim that women not wearing a hijab, but dressing modestly otherwise, contravenes Islamic principles, etc. etc. Or you hear people trying to argue for an Islamic view of modesty without taking a classical distinction between free women and slave women into account. What is the true aim of the hijab in light of the differences between slave and free women? What if a woman today doesn't wish to wear hijab, and argues based on such a precedent, that faith is not connected to modesty?

What do you think?

Are a Woman's Breasts Part of her Awra in front of Mahram Men?

Question #: q-13525475

Date Posted: 2006-09-18

http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.a...nID=q-13525475


Your answer on the female awra in front of her mahram's seems to suggest she can expose her chest (breasts) to her mahram (father, brother, son etc). Please clarify as this is causing confusion.


In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

As you rightly point out, it was stated in an earlier detailed article that the nakedness (awra) of a woman in front of her Mahram men (unmarriageable kin) such as the father, brother, son, paternal uncle (father's brother), maternal uncle (mother's brother), father in-law, grandson, husband's son (from another marriage) and son in-law consists of the area between the navel and knees (including the knees) and the stomach and back. It was also stated that as a consequence it will be permissible for a woman to expose her head, hair, face, neck, chest, shoulders, hands, forearms, and legs from below the knees in front of Mahram men and impermissible to expose the stomach, back or any area which is between the navel and knees. This ruling was based on the verse of Surah al-Nur (24-31) as explained by the Hanafi jurists (fuqaha) in al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 5/328, al-Hidaya, 4/461 and elsewhere.

As you can see, the chest has also been included in the parts of the body that may be exposed in front of Mahram males, with only the stomach and back added to the area between the navel and knees (with the knees included) in being considered as part of the nakedness. This leaves us with the question as to what is exactly meant by the stomach and back, and what is intended by the chest not being part of the nakedness (awra).

The prominent Hanafi jurist, Imam Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) provides us with answers to these two questions in his authoritative work, Radd al-Muhtar. He states:

"The 'stomach' is the soft part from the front, and the 'back' is its counterpart from the rear, as mentioned in al-Khaza'in (m: name of a book). Al-Rahmati said: "The back is that which is parallel to the stomach from below the chest till the navel...meaning the area (from the rear) which is parallel to the chest is not part of the nakedness (awra)." This indicates that the chest and the area which is parallel to it from the back are not included in the Awra and that the breasts are also not included in the Awra.....And there is no doubt that it is permitted to look at the chest and breasts of a Mahram woman." (Radd al-Muhtar 1/404-405)

In this text, Imam Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) expounds on the issue of a slave-woman's Awra. He states here and in another chapter of his work that the Awra of a slave-woman (excluding one's own) is similar to the Awra of a Mahram woman, in that it is permissible to see of a slave-woman that which is permitted to see of a Mahram woman. The area between the navel up to and including the knees was understandable but there was a need to define the stomach and back. As such, he clarifies what precisely is meant by the stomach and back and stipulates clearly that the chest including the breasts and the area parallel to the chest from the back are not considered to be part of the Awra of a slave-woman and a Mahram. Thus, strictly speaking, it is not necessary for a woman to cover these parts in front of a Mahram male.

Similarly, it is stated in al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya:

"It is okay for a man to see from his mother, mature daughter, sister and all other Mahram women such as grandmothers, grandchildren, paternal and maternal aunts, at their: hair, chest, locks, breasts, forearms (shoulders) and shins. It is not permissible to look at their back, stomach and the area between the navel and (including the) knees."(Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 5/328)

Imam Abd al-Hay al-Lakhnawi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his al-Si'aya:

"The jurists (fuqaha) have declared that it is permissible for a man to look at those body-parts of another's slave-woman which he is allowed to look at of his own Mahram women, and it is clear that he is allowed to look at the chest and breasts of his Mahram women..." (al-Si'aya fi Kashf ma fi Sharh al-Waqaya, 2/71)

In light of the aforementioned texts related from the reliable works in Hanafi Fiqh, it is clear that, strictly speaking, the breasts of Mahram women such as sisters, mothers and daughters are not considered to be part of their nakedness (awra). Their Awra in front of their Mahrams is restricted to the area in between the navel and knees, the stomach and back. The chest and breasts are not included in the stomach.

Having said that, it should always be remembered that a legal ruling also has a spirit attached to it. What the jurists (fuqaha) have explained is the basic and absolute minimum that a woman must cover in the presence of Mahram men. However, this does not mean she goes around the house exposing her legs chest and breasts, just like a man is not supposed to wonder around in front of his sister and daughter bare-chested. As such, although the chest and breasts are not in strict terms part of her Awra in front of Mahram men, the spirit of Shariah requires that she does not expose these parts unless there is a genuine need.

Moreover, the Fuqaha have stressed that in a case where there is fear of temptation (fitna) or desire (shahwa) on either side, it will be necessary for a woman to cover up in front of Mahrams. As such, if there is any such fear, it will not be allowed for a woman to expose her chest, breasts, legs, etc even in front of Mahrams, neither will it be permissible for a Mahram man to see or touch these areas of her body. (See: al-Lubab fi Sharh al-Kitab, 3/218).

In conclusion, strictly speaking the breasts of a woman are not considered to be part of her Awra in the presence of her Mahrams, but the spirit of Shariah, religious propriety (adab) and local customs/norms (urf) require that she does not expose them unless there is a genuine need. If there is a fear of any sexual desire, then it will become necessary for her to cover up even in front of Mahram males.

And Allah knows best

Muhammad ibn Adam
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK

[pymnConyelell]

Moreover, the Fuqaha have stressed that in a case where there is fear of temptation (fitna) or desire (shahwa) on either side, it will be necessary for a woman to cover up in front of Mahrams. As such, if there is any such fear, it will not be allowed for a woman to expose her chest, breasts, legs, etc even in front of Mahrams, neither will it be permissible for a Mahram man to see or touch these areas of her body. (See: al-Lubab fi Sharh al-Kitab, 3/218).

In conclusion, strictly speaking the breasts of a woman are not considered to be part of her Awra in the presence of her Mahrams, but the spirit of Shariah, religious propriety (adab) and local customs/norms (urf) require that she does not expose them unless there is a genuine need. If there is a fear of any sexual desire, then it will become necessary for her to cover up even in front of Mahram males.

And Allah knows best

Muhammad ibn Adam
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK

slm,

I think the sections i have higlighted in bold are the most relevant parts.

Bearing in main that we live in a sexually-charged society with even children as young as 8 raping others, i would say the Hanafi scholars of the UK would agree that exposing such parts is not allowed.

Especially since most acts of sexual abuse nowadays are carried out by close relatives, it becomes even more important to cover up.

As for designating the breasts as a viewable part of the body, i think this applied to a time when the breasts were not viewed as an erogenous part of the body. If a man looked saw a woman's breasts back then, he wouldnt get excited. Nowadays, he'd probably soil his pants at a similar sight.

Also, Women could not always cover up in the house because they constantly had to breastfeed children and forcing them to cover up would have made life difficult. Nowadays, such problems dont exist, with whole ranges of maternaty clothes available for sale.

Also, even back then, a unintentional glance was acceptable. But as the Prophet said, staring at the women is not.

[pIp83Uns]

I have knowledge that a slave woman can leave her home without hijab and with breasts showing. But are they aloud to dance and sing?????

[fudelholf]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim


"However, this does not mean she goes around the house exposing her legs chest and breasts, just like a man is not supposed to wander around in front of his sister and daughter bare-chested. As such, although the chest and breasts are not in strict terms part of her Awra in front of Mahram men, the spirit of Shariah requires that she does not expose these parts unless there is a genuine need"

He just equated a man's bare chest to a woman's bare chest and used the language of "not supposed to"- as if its haram, or at best makruh. Anyone else find this peculiar?


A man's shoulders and chest are part of his awrah?
Ash Shafii, Malik, Abu Hanifah (rahm) all recognized the space between navel to knee to be the awrah.
Even there are a minority who consider man's awrah to be only his genitalia and buttocks but not the thighs and knees.

There is an issue of the 'progression' of humanity in tradition. Lack of available clothing and slavery were both products of human economies. The technological advancements rendered slavery no longer necessary and made clothing easily available for all.

Just as slavery has been outlawed, so too has public nudity of women. It was known that Arabs used to make tawaf naked, and the ayaat 7:31 was revealed calling for adornment in worship. And An Nabi (saaw) followed this with forbidding disbelievers from Makka.

It was also known that some sahaba (raahm) were so poor that they only had single garments/cloth which they tied to their necks but they wore nothing underneath. the Muslim women were asked to delay rising from sujud until the men had done so to avoid the men causing fitnah for the women.

None of this is appropriate now.

And Allah knows best.

[pIp83Uns]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim


"However, this does not mean she goes around the house exposing her legs chest and breasts, just like a man is not supposed to wander around in front of his sister and daughter bare-chested. As such, although the chest and breasts are not in strict terms part of her Awra in front of Mahram men, the spirit of Shariah requires that she does not expose these parts unless there is a genuine need"

He just equated a man's bare chest to a woman's bare chest and used the language of "not supposed to"- as if its haram, or at best makruh. Anyone else find this peculiar?


A man's shoulders and chest are part of his awrah?
Ash Shafii, Malik, Abu Hanifah (rahm) all recognized the space between navel to knee to be the awrah.
Even there are a minority who consider man's awrah to be only his genitalia and buttocks but not the thighs and knees.

There is an issue of the 'progression' of humanity in tradition. Lack of available clothing and slavery were both products of human economies. The technological advancements rendered slavery no longer necessary and made clothing easily available for all.

Just as slavery has been outlawed, so too has public nudity of women. It was known that Arabs used to make tawaf naked, and the ayaat 7:31 was revealed calling for adornment in worship. And An Nabi (saaw) followed this with forbidding disbelievers from Makka.

It was also known that some sahaba (raahm) were so poor that they only had single garments/cloth which they tied to their necks but they wore nothing underneath. the Muslim women were asked to delay rising from sujud until the men had done so to avoid the men causing fitnah for the women.

None of this is appropriate now.

And Allah knows best.

What do you mean by Fitna. Who told you the Hijab has been made compulsory for all adult free woman to stop fitna. Actually it has been made obligotory so they are distinguishable from non believing woman. Secondly the awrah is between the navel and knee according to most scholars although I personally differ. The deen has been completed and most sahaba where not as poor as you mentioned thy had clothing. Study you deen before issuing this disgusting Fatwa below

He just equated a man's bare chest to a woman's bare chest and used the language of "not supposed to"- as if its haram, or at best makruh. Anyone else find this peculiar?

Brothers sisters it is not makruh this person has no knowledge on this subject

[fudelholf]

The part concerning men who prayed with cloth tied to their necks and women delaying salah was from shaykh Ibn Rushd's work: Bidayatul Mujtahid in the book of salah.
He didn't cite the evidence but my instructor didn't mention this as peculiar or in error.


There is disagreement over whether the communication and command applies to free and slave, or just free excluding the slave. But some ulama such as Hasan al Basri (rh) consider the commands regarding awrah applies for Muslim women who are both free and slave.

And there is indeed a disgreement amongst some ulama as to what constitutes the awrah.

Im not posting fatwah. Subhanna Allah.

Dont get angry, bro.

[Doctor-CTAC]

I've seen Fatawa on askimam.org that say that the awra of a woman in front of her mahrams is everything but the hands, feet, forearms, and head.

I wrote a post with those fatawa listed, but for some reason, the post hasn't showed up.

[deandrecooke]

‎الأمة ) القنة وأم الولد والمدبرة والمكاتبة والمستدعاة عند أبي حنيفة لوجود الرق ( البطن والظهر ) لأن لهما مزية فصدرها وثديها ليسا من العورة للحرج

http://www.islamww.com/booksww/book_....php?bkid=2215

Translation from the translated version of Maraqi al-Falah:

The female slave, whether a complete, child bearing, mudabbara, contract, and mustas’a with Abu Hanifa because of the presence of slavery, has in addition to the man the stomach and the back because they have a specific facet. Her chest and breasts are not nakedness due to difficulty.

Al-Tahawi says:

قوله : للحرج من حيث أنها تباع وتشرى وتخرج لحاجة مولاها في ثياب مهنتها عادة فاعتبر حالها بذوات المحارم في حق جميع الرجال

http://www.islamww.com/booksww/book_....php?bkid=2219

From al-Hidayah:

وهذا هو الصحيح دون الضم وما كان عورة من الرجل فهو عورة من الأمة وبطنها وظهرها عورة وما سوى ذلك من بدنها ليس بعورة لقول عمر رضي الله عنه : ألق عنك الخمار يا دفار أتتشبهين بالحرائر ؟ ولأنها تخرج لجاجته مولا ها في ثياب مهنتها عادة فاعتبر حالها بذوات المحارم في حق جميع الرجال دفعا للحرج

http://www.islamicbook.ws/asol/%C7%E...ED%C9%201.html

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله

[Vkowefek]

I am sorryi am responding.


I do not know what sane person respects what the fatwa above has said. That women can show her body parts to her mahrams, SHE CANNOT . I do not know who you are quoting, but he is surely misguided and his fatwa is rejected by all scholars because he is inventing an opinion contrary to the opinions of past scholars. Try Ibn Kathir who is a classical scholar if you do not belive the schoalrs I would cite.


Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

The ‘awrah of a woman in front of her mahrams such as her father, brother and nephew is her entire body except that which usually appears such as the face, hair, neck, forearms and feet. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“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”

[al-Noor 24:31].

So Allaah has permitted a woman to show her adornment in front of her husband and mahrams. What is meant by adornment is the places where adornments are worn: the place for a ring is the hand, for a bracelet is the forearm, for an earring is the ear, for a necklace is the neck and chest, and for an anklet is the leg.

Abu Bakr al-Jassaas (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Tafseer: The apparent meaning indicates that it is permissible to show one’s adornment to one’s husband and to whose who are also mentioned in the verse, such as fathers etc. It is well known that what is meant is the places where adornments are worn, which are the face, hand and arm… this implies that it is permissible for those who are mentioned in the verse to look at these places, which are the places where hidden adornments are worn, as it says in the beginning of the verse that only outward adornments may be seen by strangers (non-mahrams), but the husband and mahrams are permitted to see hidden adornments. It was narrated from Ibn Mas’ood and al-Zubayr that this refers to earrings, necklaces, bracelets and anklets.

This applies both to the husband and to the others who are mentioned along with him. The general meaning implies that it is permissible for those who are mentioned to look at the places where these adornments are worn just as it is permissible for the husband. End quote.

Al-Baghawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The words of Allaah, may He be exalted, “and not to show off their adornment”, mean that they should not show their adornments to a non-mahram. What is meant here is the hidden adornments, as there are two kinds of adornment, hidden and apparent. Hidden adornments include anklets, henna on the foot, bracelets on the wrist, earrings and necklaces. It is not permissible for a woman to show these, or for a stranger (non-mahram) to look at them. And what is meant by adornment is the place where the adornment is worn. End quote.

It says in Kashshaaf al-Qinaa’ (5/11): A man may also look at the face, neck, hand, foot, head and calf of a woman who is his mahram. According to this report al-Qaadi said: It is permissible (to look at) that which ordinarily appears such as the head and hands up to the elbows. End quote.

http://www.*************/en/ref/82994/Awrah

Keep in mind before spreading this site on the internet that many Muslims and non-Muslims are reading your fatwas and posts. You need to explain who slaves are, is slavery still practised, before spreading that they can be topless in public, etc...

It is true that at that time women and men had no clothing, had nothing to eat too! This was the time of warfare, etc... It took Ressol, sall-Alalhu alayhi wa salam, to spread Islam, for how long? This obviously doesn't mean that they were slaves forever , etc...


Imam Malik said: In our view the man who rapes a woman, whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a “dowry” like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The [hadd] punishment (lashing or stoning) is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case. Al-Muwatta’, 2/734

The Qur'an says:

And force not your slave-girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life. But if anyone compels them, then after such compulsion, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [24:33]

The Prohibition of Forcing One's Slave Girl to Commit Zina (fornication)In his Musnad, Al-Hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmad bin `Amr bin `Abd Al-Khaliq Al-Bazzar, may Allah have mercy on him, recorded that Az-Zuhri said, "`Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul had a slave-girl whose name was Mu`adhah, whom he forced into prostitution. When Islam came, the Ayah

[وَلاَ تُكْرِهُواْ فَتَيَـتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَآءِ]

(And force not your slave-girls to prostitution...) was revealed.'' Al-A`mash narrated from Abu Sufyan that Jabir said concerning this Ayah, "This was revealed about a slave-girl belonging to `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul whose name was Musaykah. He used to force her to commit immoral actions, but there was nothing wrong with her and she refused. Then Allah revealed this Ayah:

[وَلاَ تُكْرِهُواْ فَتَيَـتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَآءِ]

(And force not your slave-girls to prostitution,) until His saying;

[وَمَن يُكْرِههُنَّ فِإِنَّ اللَّهِ مِن بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ]

(But if anyone compels them, then after such compulsion, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)'' An-Nasa'i also recorded something similar. Muqatil bin Hayyan said, "I heard -- and Allah knows best -- that this Ayah was revealed about two men who used to force two slave-girls of theirs (into prostitution). One of them was called Musaykah who belonged to [the Ansari], and Umaymah the mother of Musaykah belonged to `Abdullah bin Ubayy. Mu`adhah and Arwa were in the same situation. Then Musaykah and her mother came to the Prophet and told him about that. Then Allah revealed:

[وَلاَ تُكْرِهُواْ فَتَيَـتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَآءِ]

(And force not your slave-girls to prostitution), meaning Zina.

[إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّناً]

(if they desire chastity,) means, if they want to be chaste, which is the case with the majority of slave-girls.

[لِّتَبْتَغُواْ عَرَضَ الْحَيَوةِ الدُّنْيَا]

(in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life.) meaning, from the money they earn and their children. The Messenger of Allah forbade the money earned by the cupper, the prostitute and the fortune-teller. According to another report:

«مَهْرُ الْبَغِيِّ خَبِيثٌ وَكَسْبُ الْحَجَّامِ خَبِيثٌ، وَثَمَنُ الْكَلْبِ خَبِيثٌ»

(The earnings of a prostitute are evil, the earnings of a cupper are evil, and the price of a dog is evil.)

[وَمَن يُكْرِههُنَّ فِإِنَّ اللَّهِ مِن بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ]

(But if anyone compels them, then after such compulsion, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) meaning, towards them, as has already been stated in the Hadith narrated from Jabir. Ibn Abi Talhah narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, "If you do that, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful, and their sin will be on the one who forced them to do that.'' This was also the view of Mujahid, `Ata' Al-Khurasani, Al-A`mash and Qatadah. After explaining these rulings in detail, Allah says:

[وَلَقَدْ أَنْزَلْنَآ إِلَيْكُمْ ءَايَـتٍ مُّبَيِّنَـتٍ]

(And indeed We have sent down for you Ayat that make things plain,) meaning, in the Qur'an there are Ayat which are clear and explain matters in detail.

[وَمَثَلاً مِّنَ الَّذِينَ خَلَوْاْ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ]

(and the example of those who passed away before you,) means, reports about the nations of the past and what happened to them when they went against the commandments of Allah, as Allah says:

[فَجَعَلْنَـهُمْ سَلَفاً وَمَثَلاً لِّلاٌّخِرِينَ ]

(And We made them a precedent, and an example to later generations.) [43:56]; We made them a lesson, i.e., a rebuke for committing sin and forbidden deeds.

[لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ]

(for those who have Taqwa. ) meaning, for those who remember and fear Allah.

Thirdly, the Qur'an and prophet Muhammad repeatedly instructed the Muslims not only to refrain from harming their slaves, but also to treat them well. And you're trying to argue that Muslim men are allowed to rape their slaves?

Hadiths on the treatment of slaves:

Ali reported that the last words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were: "The prayer! The prayer! Fear Allah concerning your slaves! [Bukhari]

"Your servants and your slaves are your brothers. Anyone who has slaves should give them from what he eats and wears. He should not charge them with work beyond their capabilities. If you must set them to hard work, in any case I advise you to help them." [Bukhari]

Jabir ibn 'Abdullah said, "The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, advised that slaves should be well-treated. He said, 'Feed them from what you eat and clothe them from what you wear. Do not punish what Allah has created. [Bukhari]

Sallam ibn 'Amr reported from one of the Companions of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Your slaves are your brothers, so treat him well. Ask for their help in what is too much for you and help them in what is too much for them." [Bukhari]

From the last sermon: "And your slaves! See that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them what you yourself wear. And if they commit a mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented!"

And again from the Qur'an:

"Serve God, and join not any partners with Him ; and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the Companion by your side, the way-farer (ye meet), And what your right hands possess [i.e. slaves] : for God loveth not the arrogant, the “vainglorious" [4:36]

Islam prohibits mistreatment of slaves - it is ludicrous to argue that it would permit men to rape their slaves, an act worse than simple mistreatment.

[Vkowefek]

What do you mean by Fitna. Who told you the Hijab has been made compulsory for all adult free woman to stop fitna. Actually it has been made obligotory so they are distinguishable from non believing woman. Really? Why do us women have to cover? I will not add any reasoning to the words of Allah, the Exalted. What others have said is that it is for a great wisdom and I bet one of them is to cover yourself so you do not cause fitna and get looked at!

You thought of slave women allowed to be topless (because of great necessity and great difficulty and poverty that outweighted the covering for them), then went on thinking that women do not cover so they do not cause fitna.

Secondly the awrah is between the navel and knee according to most scholars although I personally differ. Due to many sects these days, you need to folllow past schlars who follow "literal" form of Islam andnot mak eyour owm fatwa. Because you say I personally differ, based on, your view?

The deen has been completed and most sahaba where not as poor as you mentioned thy had clothing. Study you deen before issuing this disgusting Fatwa below Why ar eyou against others being poor? Allah, azz wajall, according to a hadeeth, rewards disbelievers on this life and gives them worldly pleasures for many reasons, and one of them is that he rewards them with good on this life for their good deeds, but no reward for them on the hereafter for those good deeds. Do you think the Prophet, saw, and ashaba wanted to be rich? How wron gyou are. When they had wealth, and there were times when they didn't, when they had it, they gave all their wealth to charity.