From the Textual Proof for the Obligation of the Niqab by Ibn ‘Uthaymeen Ibn ‘Umar reported that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) said: “Whoever trails his garment out of pride, Allah will not look at him on the day of judgement.” So Umm Salamah (radiallaahu anha) asked: “Then what should the women do with the hems of their dresses?“ The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: “Let them extend their hems the length of a hand span.” She said: “But their feet would still be exposed.” So he replied: “Then let them extend it a forearm’s length and no more.” [Abu Dawud] Ibn ‘Uthaymeen comments: “There is evidence in this hadeeth that a woman is obligated to cover her feet. This was a well known matter amongst the female companions. Without a doubt, the foot is less a place of fitnah than the face and hands. Thus, warning against something that is a lesser danger also consists of a warning against what is greater and superior than it, based on the wisdom of the Last Revelation. Would it obligate the covering of an area that is less a place of fitnah, and allow the exposure of that which is a greater area of fitnah? Indeed this is a clear contradiction that is not possible for the wisdom of Allah and His Legislation.” Taken From “The Four Essays on the Obligation of Veiling”, Ch. 2: “An Essay on Hijab” By Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, p.39 ‘Aa’ishah (radiallaahu anha) said: “Male riders would pass by us while we (wives) were in the state of ihram with the messenger of Allah. When they would approach us, (each) one of us would let her jilbaab fall down from (the top of) her head over her face. And when they had passed on, we would uncover our faces.” [Ahmad, Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah] Ibn ‘Uthaymeen comments: “In her statement: “When they (male riders) would approach us, (each) one of us would let her jilbaab fall down from (the top of) her head over her face” is a proof for the obligation of covering the face. This is because when one is in the state of ihram, it is obligatory to uncover the face. So if it were not for the strong restriction against exposing the face, it would have been obligatory for them (i.e. the Prophet’s wives) to remain uncovered, even in the presence of the male riders. (1) To clarify this point further: Uncovering the face in the state of ihram is obligatory on all women, according to the majority of scholars. And the obligatory act does not get overridden, except by something else that is obligatory (to a stronger degree). Therefore, if veiling the face in front of male strangers were not obligatory, it would not have been permitted to abandon the obligatory act of exposing the face in the state of ihram. Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: ‘This hadeeth is from that which shows us that the face veil (niqab) and the gloves were widely known to women who were not in ihram. This is evidence for the covering of their faces and hands.’” Note: What the shaykh means here is that those in ihram are obligated to uncover their faces, however ‘Aa’ishah would cover her face in the presence of male riders, so it is only obvious to assume that there is a stronger obligation overriding this obligation (of those in ihram uncovering their faces). So even though someone in ihram must uncover their face, the obligation of a woman covering her face is an even stronger obligation. Taken from “Four Essays on the Obligation of Veiling” Ch. 2: An Essay on Hijab, Pp. 40-41 Refuting the Claim Against the Obligation of Niqab Some scholars claim that the niqab (face veil) is not an obligation, using as evidence the following narration: ‘Aa’ishah (radiallaahu anha) said: “Asma Bint Abi Bakr entered in the presence of Allah’s Messenger whilst wearing a thin, transparent garment. So the Messenger of Allah turned away from her saying: “O Asma Indeed when a woman reaches the age of puberty, it is not allowed that any of her be seen except for this and this.” And he pointed to his face and hands.” [Abu Dawud] Ibn ‘Uthaymeen refutes this claim and says about this hadeeth: “As for the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah, then it is da’if (weak) based on two aspects: 1) The break in the chain between ‘Aa’ishah and Khalid Bin Duraik, which was reported by Abu Dawud, who noted the deficiency himself when he stated that Khalid Bin Duraik never heard from ‘Aa’ishah. Abu Hatim Ar-Razi, may Allah have mercy upon him, also mentioned this weakness. 2) One of the narrators in its chain is Sa’id Bin Bashir An-Nasri, a settler in Damascus, who was renounced by Ibn Mahdi and declared weak by Imam Ahmad, Ibn Ma’in, Ibn Madini, and An-Nisa’i. Due to this, the hadeeth is da’if and cannot be used as an argument against the authentic hadeeths mentioned previously, which prove the obligation of veiling (of the face and hands). Furthermore, Asma Bint Abi Bakr was 27 years old when the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) made Hijrah. So being that she was mature and advanced in age, it would be unthinkable to suspect that she would enter the presence of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) with a thin and tight dress, such that it revealed from her, more than just her hands and face. And Allah knows best. And even if we were to assume that this hadeeth was authentic, it probably took place before the advent of Hijab. This is since the texts concerning the hijab can be traced back to the original state, so they take precedence.” Taken from “The Four Essays on the Obligation of Veiling”, Pp. 49-50 Regarding Allah’s statement, “…and let them not stamp their feet, so as to reveal what they hide from their adornment.” [Nur (24):31] Ibn ‘Uthaymeen says: “This means that a woman must not strike her feet so as to let it be known what she conceals (from her adornment), such as her ankle bracelets or anything else that she adorns herself with for a man. So is a woman is forbidden (in this Ayah) from stamping her feet, for fear of causing fitnah for a man, due to what he hears from the sound of her ankle-bracelet or its types, then how about exposing the face? Which of the two is a greater cause for fitnah? That a man hears the sound of the ankle-bracelet produced by the foot of a woman, not knowing who she is, nor her beauty nor if she is young or old or if she is unattractive or beautiful. Which of these two is a greater fitnah? This, or that he looks at a woman’s uncovered face that is perhaps beautiful, fair, young, bright, enticing, and which is perhaps beautified with that which attracts fitnah (temptation) and calls for the prohibited look? Indeed, every man that has an interest in women knows which of the two is a greater fitnah and which is more deserving of being covered and concealed.” Taken from “Four Essays on the Obligation of Veiling” Ch. 2: An Essay on Hijab, p. 31 : The ruling on niqab in non muslim countries. Shaykh salih al uthaymeen (Rahimahullah) youtu.be/WXPyCaf6eMo
Posted on: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 09:38:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015