Powered by UITechs
Get password? Username Password
1 2
Next page >>
Page 1 of 2

  Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly 


Topic initiated on Wednesday, January 10, 2007  -  8:38 AM Reply with quote
Check Out This Brilliant Article on Hijab!


Edited by: Nida_e_Khair on Friday, October 13, 2023 10:27 PM

Posted - Thursday, January 11, 2007  -  7:56 AM Reply with quote

A Narrative About the Prophet's (pbuh) Directive Regarding the Appropriate Clothing for Women


Subject Matter of the Narrative:
According to Abu Dawood's narrative no. 4104 it is reported:

روي أن أسماء بنت أبي بكر دخلت على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وعليها ثياب رقاق فأعرض عنها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وقال: يا أسماء إن المرأة إذا بلغت المحيض لم تصلح أن يري منها إلا هذا وهذا وأشار إلى وجهه وكفيه

It is narrated that once Asma the daughter of Abu Bak'r entered upon the Prophet (pbuh) clad in a dress made of a thin cloth. Observing this, the Prophet (pbuh) turned away his face from her and said: Asma, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it is not appropriate that anything besides this and this is visible of her. He said this while pointing towards his face and his hands.

Similar incident has also been reported in Bayhaqiy's narrative no. 3034, 13274 and 13275, Al-Mo'jam al-Awsat, narrative no. 8394, Al-Mo'jam al-Kabeer vol. 24, pg. 142 and Musnad Al-Shaamiyyeen, narrative no. 2739.

Comment on the Narrative
Of the seven narratives of this incident, Abu Dawood's narrative no. 4104, Bayhaqiy's narrative no. 3034, Bayhaqiy's narrative no. 13274 and the report of Musnad Al-Shaamiyyeen (narrative no. 2739) are reported through Sa`eed ibn Bashir (سعيد بن بشير), who has been considered a weak narrator[1]. Besides Sa`eed ibn Bashir, the chain of these narratives is also broken, as it is reported through Khalid ibn Durayk, who is reporting on the authority of Ayesha (ra). However, scholars om the field agree that Khalid ibn Durayk did not meet Ayesha (ra), and therefore could not have heard anything from the Umm al-Mu'mineen. Thus, after noting this narrative in Abu Dawood (narrative no. 3034), the following words are added:

قال أبو داود هذا مرسل خالد بن دريك لم يدرك عائشة

Abu Dawood has said that this is a Mursal[2] narrative of Khalid Ibn Durayk, as he did not meet Ayesha (ra).

As for the remaining narratives, all of these are reported on the authority of `Ayyaad ibn Abd Allah Al-Fahriy (عياض بن عبد الله الفهري) and Abd Allah Ibn Lahiy`ah (عبد الله بن لهيعة). Experts on the information regarding the reliability of narrators have mixed opinions regarding these two narrators[3]. And they - especially Abd Allah ibn Lahiy`ah - have generally been considered as weak and unreliable in reporting narratives of the Prophet (pbuh).

In view of the fact that from among the various chains of narrators reporting this incident, not even a single chain can be considered as fully reliable, we do not consider it prudent to accept the incident as correctly reported.

(This write-up is prepared by the Hadith Cell of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

Posted - Thursday, January 11, 2007  -  9:09 PM Reply with quote

Assalamualaikum sister,

verses such as

[33:59] O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. Thus, they will be recognized (as righteous women) and avoid being insulted. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

cannot be taken literally any more

i would like to clarify my point by comparing this verse to another that was revealed in the Qura'an

(aimed at the mushiks)

...wherever ye find them, and seize them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. (Quran-Al Tawbah

sister take both verses out of context. it is so EASY to take them literally because we just havent looked at them in context!

lets look at the verse from at tawbah. shall we take it literally and start killing the mushriks wherever we see them? no! because this verse was reavealed to the Prophet(saw) in Makkah, when the Muslims were under seige and needed to kill the mushriks in order to defend themselves.

now look at the verse from surah Ahzab, v59. put it in to context sister! it was revealed in Madina when the Muslims were no longer under threat or seige, when they were surrounded by more Muslims than non Muslims and wearing the Hijaab was considered as honourable, not rebellious.

i personally love my Hijaab and took it, and still wear it, for the right reasons but as to whether it provides the Muslim women with as much protection as it once did?



Alhamdulillah, we are so much less at risk from any kind of sexual abuse, Alhamdulillah we are so safe and protected physically by our veils, and respected - sure. by people who understand.

and yet whenever i walk past people who dont understand and arent learned? i get the name calling, the abuse, the glare, and i know im not the only one.


so... we really mustnt take everything we read so literally and put everything in context before applying it to our lives

Wassalam .xXx.

Posted - Thursday, January 11, 2007  -  9:39 PM Reply with quote
I agree with waseem that we should not take hadith stories so lightly - most of them are just stories and fairy tales.

The article whose link is posted, it seems so shallow. The author seems quite naive and prejudiced. For e.g.


Men are an aggressive lot. If you take away clothes from a woman, the man is not suddenly going to start respecting her. Rather he's going to take it as a green light to chase after her.

I don't know what men this author is talking about. I do not run after naked women nor do other men I know of. If you have gone to any beach in the West, you will not find men running after women in swimsuits. You will find families with children having a good time. Infact I think the Western man practices the hijaab more than the typical Asian Muslim man. Go to a beach in American or Europe, men will be minding their own business. Go to Karachi or Lahore, and all the men on the street are eyeing the ladies, even those in burqas. Now you tell me which man is following the Quran better:

24.30 Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.


It doesn't take an analyst from Fashion Avenue to figure out that a man will design clothes for women that fits one main criteria: That the outfit be pleasing and attractive to the eyes of a man.

More BS. Did you know many women's clothes are designed by women themselves. Who invented the brassiere? It was a woman.


The feminists say that women should be free and independent, never relying on any man. So the message men extract from this is that now they can have as many lovers as they want and never have to be tied down to one woman ever again

I have yet to see a Western man who has extracted such a message from this that he can have as many lovers. On the other hand, some Arabs, especially of rich GCC countries, think they can have as many women as they please and they divorce a wife when they see a prettier woman like they are changing their shoes.


Already the feminists have destroyed Christianity and Judaism

Christianity and Judaism were only weakened by the innovations people had made into the revelations of God. These religions already lost their luster in the industrial revolution or earlier when the stupid laws of the church were debunked by science. Feminists had nothing to do with it.


A Muslimah in Hijab always looks purer than a woman in a mini- skirt.

It is ironic that the author and other Muslims like the author ask us not to judge women by their bodies by their their souls. Now is this not hypocrisy that the author is judging other woman by their appearance? The author thinks a woman's outer apperance dictates how pure she is!

It is like saying the mullah with the longest beard is most pious muslims!

Islam requires Muslim men and women to behave and dress modestly and interact with each other modestly. 33.59 asks women to cover themselves with outer garments so they are not molested. From that if one thinks Allah is asking to cover the head only, than that is pretty shallow interpretation indeed.

And Allah (SWT) knows best!

Edited by: oosman on Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:42 PM

Edited by: oosman on Friday, January 12, 2007 1:40 AM

Posted - Friday, January 12, 2007  -  5:10 AM Reply with quote
Quote:-wherever ye find them, and seize them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. (Quran-Al Tawbah

sister take both verses out of context. it is so EASY to take them literally because we just havent looked at them in context!

lets look at the verse from at tawbah. shall we take it literally and start killing the mushriks wherever we see them? no! because this verse was reavealed to the Prophet(saw) in Makkah, when the Muslims were under seige and needed to kill the mushriks in order to defend themselves.

Reply:-No sister you are entirely wrong here.See below the the explanation from Tafheem-ul-Quran.This surah reavealed on 9A.H.
This Surah comprises three discourses:-

The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa'adah A. H. 9 or thereabout. As the importance of the subject of the discourse required its declaration on the occasion of Haj the Holy Prophet despatched Hadrat Ali to follow Hadrat Abu Bakr, who had already left for Makkah as leader of the Pilgrims to the Ka'abah. He instructed Hadrat Ali to deliver the discourse before the representatives of the different clans of Arabia so as to inform them of the new policy towards the mushriks.

Historical Background

Now let us consider the historical background of the Surah. The series of events that have been discussed in this Surah took place after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah. By that time, one-third of Arabia had come under the sway of Islam which had established itself as a powerful, well organized and civilized Islamic State. This Treaty afforded further opportunities to Islam to spread its influence in the comparatively peaceful atmosphere created by it. After this Treaty, two events took place, which led to very important results:

9:5) Then, when the months made unlawful *6 for fighting expire, kill the mushriks wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and establish Salat and pay the Zakat dues, then let them go their way: *7 for Allah is Forgiving and Compassionate.
*6 Here "the months made unlawful" are not those four months during which war is forbidden for the sake of Haj and `Umrah but the four months that were made unlawful for the Muslims to make any attack on the mushriks, who were granted respite by v. 2.

*7 That is, "Mere repentance from disbelief and shirk will not end the matter. but they shall have to perform the prescribed prayer and pay Zakat dues. Without these it will not be considered that they had given up disbelief and embraced Islam. " Hadrat Abu Bakr based his decision on this verse in the case of the apostates, after the death of the Holy Prophet, who argued that they were not the rejecters of Islam, because they offered Salat, even though they had refused to pay the Zakat dues. This argument roused doubts in the minds of the Companions in general that they had no right to fight with such people as these. But Hadrat Abu Bakr removed their doubts, saying, "Verse 5 enjoins us to let those people go their way who fulfil all the three conditions- repentance from shirk, the establishment of Salat and the payment of Zakat. We cannot forbear them, because they do not fulfil one of these three conditions."

(9:6) And if any of the mushriks requests you for protection so that he may come to you (to hear the Word of Allah), give him protection till he hears the Word of Allah; then convey him. to the place of his safety: this should be done because these people do not know the Truth. *8
*8 That is, "lf during a fight, an enemy makes a request that he should be given an opportunity to understand Islam, the Muslims should give him a surety of protection and allow him to visit them. They should then present Islam before him in order to make him understand it. If, after this, he dces not embrace Islam, they should convey him safely to his place" . Such a person who comes to Dar-ul-Islam under the above mentioned protection is called musta'min in the Islamic Code.


Posted - Saturday, January 13, 2007  -  8:15 AM Reply with quote
Response quoted from Al-Mawrid web site

First of all, I should explain that the concept regarding covering face is not valid. The Holy Qur’an in evident words maintains that a believing lady is not obligated to cover her face, hands and feet. So much so that she may display the ornaments that she wears on these parts of her body. It is indeed from the exemption of these ornaments that we deduce the exemption of face, hands and feet. The Holy Qur’an says that Muslim ladies should cover their ornaments but not those worn on limbs which are kept uncovered. I quote from the Holy Qur’an:

وَقُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا

Ask the believing ladies to lower their gaze and cover their private parts and do not reveal their Zeenat (ornaments) save that which are [worn on body parts that] are normally revealed. (24:31)

Thus, the keywords in these verses are إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا (save that which are [worn on body parts that] are normally revealed). Obviously, the body parts which are normally revealed are face, hands and feet. Imam Zamakshari, while expounding this verse, has penned the following comments:

Those body parts which are naturally and normally revealed and ordinarily kept uncovered. (Tafseer Kashaf, Vol. 3 page. 231)

On the basis of this argument, I very humbly assert that Muslim ladies have not been obligated to veil their face under normal circumstances. If however she senses any danger, she can – and she should – take whatever measures she deems fit for protecting her life, honor and modesty.

Hence, Islam does not bind a lady to cover her face in the presence of common Muslims nor does it ask her to do so in the presence of her Khaloo, Phoopa, Behnoi etc. However, there are certain guidelines that all Muslims should observe when they interact with the opposite sex. These have been clearly spelled out in the Surah Noor (24). These guidelines may be summarized as:

1. Muslim men and women both should restrain their gaze.

2. They should cover their private parts.

3. As ladies adorn themselves, Allah has bidden them that they should not display their ornaments save those, which are worn on body parts that are ordinarily uncovered.

4. Muslim ladies should especially cover their chest, that is to say, they should conceal the swelling. They should also not jingle their hidden ornaments lest it may attract attention.

The Holy Qur’an reads:

Ask the believing men to restrain their gaze and cover their private parts. That is purer for them. And Allah knows what they undertake. Ask the believing ladies to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and do not reveal their Zeenat (ornaments) save that which are [worn on body parts that] are normally revealed. And not to reveal their ornaments save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who are not attracted to women, or children who know nothing of hidden aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their ornaments. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that you may succeed. (24:31)

In this verse, the Almighty has also described a list of relations about whom the Muslim ladies have further been given some allowance as regards their ornaments. In summary, they are forbidden to reveal, in the presence of the opposite sex, their ornaments which are worn on body parts other than hands, face and feet, they can however reveal these in the presence of their husbands, fathers, brothers — the list goes on as is given in the verse above.

Now coming to the question about the Hadith, I should say that this is a very purposeful warning of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) to the Muslim men and women. This Hadith cautions the Muslims that they should exercise vigilance as regards relations which are closer due to social set up yet there are chances of things going wrong. I quote the Hadith from Sahih Bukhari:

Uqba b. Amir reported Allah's Messenger (pbuh) as saying: Beware of barging in on women (in seclusion). A person from the Ansar said: Allah's Messenger, what about husband’s brother, whereupon he said: Husband's brother is like death. (Bukhari: No. 4831)

The question posed by the person from among the Ansar is natural. Since there is a potential possibility that a husband’s brother would frequent his visits to his brother’s house due to many reasons, he wanted to listen to the Holy Prophet’s (pbuh) standpoint on a husband’s brother’s relationship with his sister in law. Similarly, the Holy Prophet’s reply was a precautious warning that the Muslims should exercise double care in this matter due to a sort of affiliation between brother in law and sister in law without the existence of any real relationship. It is to be noted that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) has also warned the Muslims in general not be in seclusion with women because the three of them would be Satan. Hence, the stress is on avoiding seclusion with a sister in law; this Hadith does not forbid us to talk to in-laws and have a good relationship with them. If the norms described in Surah Noor are observed, there is no harm in interacting with in laws.

The scholars have also described the same understanding of the Hadith in question. For instance, after reporting the above Hadith, Imam Tirmidhi writes:

This means that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) has disliked for a brother to get alone with her sister in law. (Tirmidhi, No. 1191)

Hence, the point is that both brother in law and sister in law should develop a relationship of respect in which they are neither too frank nor rude. They should avoid circumstances where base emotions may be stimulated. In my humble opinion, people have an inner voice, which guides them whether things are going in the right direction or wrong. As and when they feel that they should change the topic of discussion or in any case, they should change their place, they ought to do the same. Barring such untoward situations, believers should continue to have a relationship with others charged with affection, sincerity and devotion.

The directive mentioned in Surah Ahzaab regarding wearing Jilbaab was meant to counter a false excuse put up by the scandalmongers of Medina. This directive, as it is evident from the context where it lies, was only given to tackle one extraordinary perilous situation that arose in the time of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). I have also expounded upon this in another similar query. You may please refer to it for details and arguments[2].

Notwithstanding that Islam has forbidden Muslim men and women to feast their eyes on the attributes of each other, Islam has allowed women to appear before men and other unacquainted women without covering their faces. Both men and women are ordained to guard their gaze, however, though they are not supposed to close their eyes[3].

You ask me about some traditions. I tell you that we do find traditions where women would appear in front of men without veils etc during the times of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). In one tradition it is reported that Fadal Bin Abbas was with the Holy Prophet (pbuh) during the time of the Last Hajj; a woman from among the tribe, Khath’am, came to the Holy Prophet (pbuh) to ask about Hajj. Fadal Bin Abbas began staring at her and she began looking at him. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) turned Abbas’ face to the other side many times[4]. Similarly, it is reported that the Muslim ladies would offer the Fajr prayer with the Holy Prophet (pbuh). He would offer this prayer so early in the morning that even after offering the prayer there would be much darkness. The reporters tell us that because of this darkness these women on their way back could not be recognized[5]. Obviously, the question of recognition only arises if their faces were uncovered, and they could otherwise be recognized if only there be some more daylight.

I however would like to assert that the viewpoint described above is not based on these reports. The dissident people may try to explain away these reports. We in fact need to consider what the Holy Qur’an says and the debate should be confined to the determination of the meaning of the Qur’anic verses since it is safe and preserved. And according to it, the Muslim ladies are perfectly allowed to keep their faces uncovered

Posted - Saturday, January 13, 2007  -  8:18 AM Reply with quote
concluding remarks from Jahangir Hanif Al-Mawrid web site

My response depends on what you imply by the word ‘binding’. I mean if you meant whether Allah, in the revealed Shari’ah, has bound the Muslim ladies to cover their heads, my response is no. But if you meant whether Muslim ladies, by virtue of the dictates of their Fitrah – which has been adorned with Haya (modesty) – should wear head covering, my response is yes[1].

Many scholars have deduced from this tradition that it is imperative for the Muslim ladies to cover their heads. They contend, on its basis, that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) has only exempted face and hands from the obligation of covering. This means that head is included in the body parts which will be covered. However, it may be noted that this Hadith has been criticized.

In addition to Abu Daw’ood, it has also been reported in Sunan Al-Baihaqi. However, Imam Abu Daw’ood terms it Mursal tradition (i.e. the chain of reporters is not given completely) and Imam Baihaqi says that this tradition is Da’eef (not authentic

Posted - Saturday, January 13, 2007  -  11:06 AM Reply with quote
Brother waseem

You mains Jahangir Hanif is the one whoes interpetation of Quran you have posted here.?Oh my God, didn't you see him in the forum you have open for Amal-e-Salih? How good he is in interpretation the Quran.Here I am posting the inetrpretation of Maulana Maudoodi Sahib from Tafheen-ul-Quan.

(24:31) O Prophet, enjoin the Believing women to restrain their gaze *31 and guard their private *32 parts. *33 and not to display their adornment *34 except that which is displayed of itself, *35 and to draw their veils over their bosoms *36 and not to display their adornment except before their husbands, *37 their fathers, the fathers of their husbands,

*31 The Commandments of restraining the gaze for women are the same as for men. They should not glance intentionally at the other men, and if they happen to cast a chance look, they should turn their eyes away; and they should abstain from looking at the satar of others. However, the Commandments relating to the men's looking at women are a little different from those relating to the women's looking at men. On the one hand, there is an incident related in a Tradition saying that Hadrat Umm Salamah and Hadrat Umm Maimunah, wives of the Holy Prophet, were sitting with him when lbn Umm Maktum, a blind Companion, made his appearance. The Holy Prophet said to his wives: "Conceal your faces from him." The wives said, "O Messenger of Allah: Is he not a blind man '? Neither will he see us nor recognize us." Thereupon the Holy Prophet remarked: "Are you two also blind? Do you not see him?" Hadrat Umm Salamah has clarified that this incident occurred at a time when the Commandments about the observance of purdah had already been sent down. (Ahmad, Abu Da'ud, Tirmizi. This is also supported by a Tradition in Mu'atta saying that a blind man came to see Hadrat 'A'ishah and she observed purdah from him. When asked as to why she observed purdah when the man could not see her, she replied: "But I do see him." On the other hand, there is a different Tradition from Hadrat `A'ishah. In 7 A.H. a deputation of the negroes came to AI-Madinah and they gave a performance of physical skill in the compound of the Prophet's Mosque. The Holy Prophet himself showed their performance to Hadrat 'A'ishah. (Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad). In another case, we find that when Fatimah bint Qais was irrevocably divorced by her husband, the question arose as to where she should pass her 'Iddah (the prescribed waiting term after divorce or death of husband). The Holy Prophet first told her to stay with Umm Sharik Ansari, but then instructed her to stay in the house of Ibn Umm Maktum, where she could stay with greater freedom as he was a blind man. He did not approve of her staying in the house of Umm Shank because she was a rich lady and her house was frequented by the Companions whom she entertained generously. (Muslim, Abu Da'ud). Read together these Traditions show that the restrictions about the women's looking at melt are not so hard as about the men's looking at women. While it is forbidden for women to sit face to face with men, it is not unlawful if they cast a look at men while passing on the way or see a harmless performance by them from a distance. There is also no hams for women to see the other men in case of real need if they are living in the same house. Imam Ghazzali; and lbn Hajar `Asqalani have also reached almost the same conclusion. Shaukani in his Nail al-Autar has quoted Ibn Hajar as saying: "Such a permission in respect of women is also supported by the fact that they have always enjoyed this type of freedom in outdoor duties While they came out veiled when visiting the mosques, or moving in the streets, or during the journey, so that men may not gaze at them, the men were never commanded to use the veil so that women may not gaze at them. This shows that the Commandments in respect of the two sexes are different." (Vol. Vl, p. 101). However, it is not at alI permissible that women should gaze leisurely at men and draw pleasure of the eye in doing so.

*32 That is, they should abstain from illicit gratification of their sex desire as well as from exposing their satar before others. Though the commandments for men in this respect are the same as for women, the boundaries of satar for women are different from those prescribed for men. Moreover, the female satar with respect to men is different from that with respect to women

The female satar with respect to men is the entire body, excluding only the hand and the face, which should not be exposed before any other man, not even the brother and father, except the husband. The woman is not allowed to wear a thin or a tight fitting dress which might reveal the skin or the outlines of the body. According to a Tradition from Hadrat 'A'ishah, orate her sister Asma' came before the Holy Prophet in a thin dress. The Holy Prophet immediately turned his face away and said: "O Asma', when a woman has attained her maturity, it is not permissible that any part of her body should be exposed except the face and the hand." (Abu Da'ud). Ibn Jarir has related a similar incident from Hadrat 'A'ishah saying that once the daughter of `Abdullah bin Tufail, who was her mother's son from her former husband, came to her house on a visit. When the Holy Prophet (Allah's peace be upon him) entered the house, he saw her but turned his face to the other side. Hadrat `A'ishah said: "O Messenger of Allah, she is my niece." Thereupon the Holy Prophet remarked: "When a woman reaches the age of puberty, it is not lawful for her to display her body except the hand and the face. (Then he indicated what he meant by the hand by gripping his own hand from the wrist so that there was hardly a breadth left between his grip and the palm of the hand)." The only relaxation permitted in this connection is that a woman can uncover only that much of her body before her close relatives (for example, her brother, father, etc.) as is absolutely necessary for attending to the household duties. For instance, she can roll up her sleeves while kneading the flour, or tuck up her trousers while washing the floor.

The boundaries of female satar with respect to women are the same as the boundaries of the male satar with respect to men, which is the part of the body from the navel to the knee. This does not, however, mean that a woman should appear half naked before other women. It only means that while it is obligatory to keep the part of body from the navel to the knee duly covered, it is not so in case of other parts.

*33 It should be carefully noted that the demands that Divine Law makes from women are not only those it has made from men, that is restraining of looks and guarding of the private parts, but it makes some other demands from them also, which it has not made from men. This shows that men and women are not identical in this respect.

*34 "Adornment" includes attractive clothes, ornaments and other decorations of the head, face, hand, feet, etc. which the women usually employ, and is expressed by the modern word 'make-up'. The injunction that this `makeup' should not be displayed before others is discussed in detail in the following Notes.

*35 Different interpretations given by different commentators of this verse have greatly confused its real meaning. AII that is obviously meant is that "women should not display their make-up and adornment" except that "which is displayed of itself" and is beyond their control. This clearly means that women should not purposely and intentionally display their make-up, but there is no accountability if the make-up becomes displayed without any purpose or intention on their part; for instance, the head-wrapper's being blown aside by the wind thus exposing the adornment, ,or the outer-garment itself which cannot be concealed but which nevertheless has attraction being a part of the female dress. This very interpretation of this verse has been given by Hadrat `Abdullah bin Mas'ud, Hasan Basri, Ibn Sirin and Ibrahim Nakha`i. On the contrary, some other commentators have interpreted the verse to mean "all those parts of the body which usually remain exposed or uncovered" and in this they include the hands and the face with all their adornments. This is the view of Hadrat Ibn `Abbas and his followers, and a large number of the Hanafi jurists have accepted it. (Ahkam-ul-Qur'an, AlJassas, Vol. III, pp. 388-389). Thus, according to them, it is permissible for a woman to move out freely with the uncovered face in full make-up and adornment of the hands

We are, however, unable to subscribe to this view. There is a world of difference between "displaying something" and "its becoming displayed of itself." The tirst implies `intention' and the second 'compulsion' and a state of helplessness. Moreover, such an interpretation also goes against the traditions which state that the women never moved out with open and uncovered faces in the time of the Holy Prophet after the Commandments of purdah had been sent down. These Commandments implied veiling of the face as well, and the veil had become a part of the female dress except during Hajj when one has to be in the prescribed state of ihram and keep the face uncovered. Another argument that is advanced in support of this view is that the hands and the face are not included in the satar of the woman, whereas satar and purdah are two entirely different things. Sanctity of satar is such that it cannot be violated even before the mahram males like the father. brother, etc. As for purdah it is over and above satar which is meant to segregate women from non mahram males; the discussion here relates to the Commandments of purdah and not to satar.

*36 In the pre-lslamic days of ignorance, women used to wear a sort of head-band, which was tied in a knot at the rear of the head. The slit of the shirt in the front partly remained open exposing the front of the neck and the upper part of the bosom. There was nothing except the shirt to cover the breasts, and the hair was worn in a couple or two of plaits hanging behind like tails. (AI-Kashshaf, Vol. II, p. 90, and Ibn Kathir, Vol. III, pp. 283-284). At the revelation of this verse, the head-wrapper (dopatta) was introduced among the Muslim women, which was meant to cover the head, the breasts, and the back, completely. The way the Muslim women responded to this Command has been described by Hadrat 'A'ishah in a vivid manner. She states that when Surah An-Nur was revealed and the people learnt of its contents from the Holy Prophet, they immediately went back to their houses and recited the verses before their wives, daughters and sisters. There was an instantaneous response. The Ansar women, one and all, inunediately got up and made wrappers from whatever piece of cloth that was handy. The next morning all the women who came to the Prophet's Mosque for prayers were dressed in wrappers. In another tradition Hadrat `A'ishah says that thin cloth was discarded and the women selected only coarse cloth for the purpose. (lbn Kathir, Vol.III, p. 284, Abu Da'ud).
The very nature and object of the Command demanded that the wrapper should not be made out of fine and thin cloth. The Ansar women immediately understood the real object and knew what type of cloth was intended to be used. The Law-Giver himself clarified this and did not leave it to be interpreted by the people. Dihya Kalbi states: "Once a length of fine Egyptian muslin was presented to the Holy Prophet. He gave a piece of it to me and said, `Use one part of it for your shirt, and give the rest of it to your wife for a wrapper, but tell her that she should stitch another piece of cloth on the inner side so that the body may not be displayed through it." (Abu Da'ud).

*37 This verse describes the circle in which a woman can move freely with all her make-up and adornment. Outside this circle she is not allowed to appear with make-up before the other people, whether they are relatives or strangers. The Commandment implies that she should not display her embellishments outside this limited circle, intentionally or through carelessness. However, what becomes displayed incidentally, in spite of care and concern, or what cannot be concealed, it is excused by Allah.

Apart from these alternatives, the people who adopt the Western, ways of life against the clear injunctions of the Qur'an and Sunnah, and then try their utmost to prove them Islam itself, and openly claim that there is no such thing as purdah in Islam, not only commit the sin of disobedience but also display ignorance and hypocritical obstinacy. Such an attitude can neither be commended by any right-thinking person in this world, nor can it merit favour with Allah in the Hereafter. But among the Muslims there exists a section of modern hypocrites who are so advanced in their hypocrisy that they repudiate the Divine injunctions as false and believe those ways of life to be right and based on truth, which they have borrowed from the non-Muslim communities. Such people are not Muslims at aII, for if they still be Muslims, the words 'lslam' and 'unIslam' lose aII their meaning and significance. Had they changed their lslamic names and publicly declared their desertion of lslam, we would at least have been convinced of their moral courage. But in spite of their wrong attitudes, these people continue to pose themselves as Muslim. There is perhaps no meaner class of people in the world. People with such character and morality cannot be unexpected to indulge in any forgery, fraud, deception or dishonesty

Posted - Sunday, January 14, 2007  -  8:28 AM Reply with quote
I agree with Usmani790.

What is this Khimar (if some Muslims translate it of their own choice) which NEITHER covers the head NOR the bosoms but Allah is commanding to cover the bosoms with it?
So, Is Khimar something like DHOTI (for women) like worn by Hindu Sadhu Sanths and the Pandats?

Posted - Sunday, January 14, 2007  -  9:09 AM Reply with quote
salam all,

we should also see this,may help in further understanding on the topic:

An excellent book discussing the veil by Sheikh Nasiruddin Albani

available here,


may Allah guide us on the right path.

Posted - Sunday, January 14, 2007  -  9:16 AM Reply with quote
Salam wa alaikum,

Exactly!! You know what, Brother Rakhtal, that's quite a logical point.

Thanks a lot Dear sister Nida-e-khair.

Posted - Sunday, January 14, 2007  -  9:18 AM Reply with quote
here are some definitions of the khimar and what it means in classical Arabic:

Imam Abu'l-Fida ibn Kathir: "Khumur is the plural of khimar which means something that covers, and is what is used to cover the head. This is what is known among the people as a khimar."

The dictionary of classical Arabic, Aqrab al-Mawarid: "[The word khimar refers to] all such pieces of cloth which are used to cover the head. It is a piece of cloth which is used by a woman to cover her head."

Shaykh Muhammad al-Munajjid on Islam Q&A: "Khimaar comes from the word khamr, the root meaning of which is to cover. For example, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Khammiru aaniyatakum (cover your vessels).” Everything that covers something else is called its khimaar. But in common usage khimaar has come to be used as a name for the garment with which a woman covers her head; in some cases this does not go against the linguistic meaning of khimaar. Some of the fuqahaa’ have defined it as that which covers the head, the temples and the neck. The difference between the hijaab and the khimaar is that the hijaab is something which covers all of a woman’s body, whilst the khimaar in general is something with which a woman covers her head."

Shaykh Muhammad Nasiruddin Albani: "The word khimaar linguistically means only a head covering. Whenever it is mentioned in general terms, this is what is intended."

Now, in case my argument presented above about "covering the head" versus "covering the face" does not seem convincing, we can also look at what some tafsirs say about the exact meaning of the commandment in Surah an-Nur ayah 31 regarding the khimar:

Imam Abu Abdullah Qurtubi: "Women in those days used to cover their heads with the khimar, throwing its ends upon their backs. This left the neck and the upper part of the chest bare, along with the ears, in the manner of the Christians. Then Allah commanded them to cover those parts with the khimar."

Imam Abu'l-Fida ibn Kathir: "'Draw their khumur to cover their bosoms' means that they should wear the khimar in such a way that they cover their chests 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 uncovered and with their necks, forelocks, hair and earrings uncovered."

click below for deatails:

Posted - Sunday, January 14, 2007  -  4:37 PM Reply with quote
you can cover as much as you like nida but please do not use the name of islam to say that it is required to cover hair, face, head etc. Already too many innovations have crept into islam, let us not add more.

Ask the believing ladies to lower their gaze and cover their private parts and do not reveal their Zeenat (ornaments) save that which are [worn on body parts that] are normally revealed. (24:31)

When Allah (SWT) says what is normally revealed is ok to show, then the interpretation is left up to us and it depends on the culture, place and time of the society. This is a mercy from Allah, and that is how this religion Islam is a universal religion for all times and all peoples. But only people of understanding can get that. I hope Allah makes us one of those people of understanding.

Posted - Sunday, January 14, 2007  -  4:55 PM Reply with quote
Refrain yourself from refuting the words of your Lord. It’s better for you in this world and the hereafter.

Posted - Sunday, January 14, 2007  -  5:11 PM Reply with quote
please show from the 'words of the Lord' where He says to cover the hair, face, head?

Please stop doing wrong bidda in Allah's deen.

Posted - Sunday, January 14, 2007  -  5:16 PM Reply with quote
Your erroneous and fallacious reply has no place in Islam.

Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly
Jump To:

1 2
Next page >>
Page 1 of 2

Share |

Copyright Studying-Islam © 2003-7  | Privacy Policy  | Code of Conduct  | An Affiliate of Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences ®

eXTReMe Tracker