Hijaab
The following text is an edited translation of a summary ofar-Radd al-Mufhim by Shaykh Naasir-ud-Deen al-Albaani found in pages 5-20 ofthe introduction of his book Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah, 3rd edition, 1996,al-Maktabah al-Islaamiyyah. The main errors of those who make the face veilobligatory
1. The interpretation of al-idnaa’ in the verse of the Jilbaab to mean“covering the face”.
This misinterpretation is contrary to the basic meaning of theword in Arabic which is “to come close”, as is mentioned in authoritativedictionaries like al-Mufradaat by the well-known scholar, ar-Raaghibal-Asbahaani. However, there is sufficient evidence in the interpretation ofthe leading commentator on the Quran, Ibn ‘Abbaas, who explained the versesaying, “She should bring the jilbaab close to her face without covering it.”It should be noted that none of the narrations used as evidence to contradictthis interpretation are authentic.
2. The interpretation of jilbaab as “a garment which covers the face.”
Like the previous misinterpretation, this interpretation has nobasis linguistically. It is contrary to the interpretation of the leadingscholars, past and present, who define the jilbaab as a garment which womendrape over their head scarves (khimaar). Even Shaykh at-Tuwaijree himselfnarrated this interpretation from Ibn Mas‘ood and other Salafee scholars.Al-Baghawee mentioned it as the correct interpretation in his Tafseer (vol. 3,p. 518) saying, “It is the garment which a woman covers herself with worn abovethe dress (dir ‘) and the headscarf.” Ibn Hazm also said, “The jilbaab in theArabic language in which the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) spoke to us is whatcovers the whole body and not just a part of it.” (vol. 3, p. 217). Al-Qurtubeedeclared this correct in his Tafseer and Ibn Katheer said, “It is the cloakworn above the headscarf.” (vol. 3, p. 518)
3. The claim that the khimaar (headscarf) covers the head and theface.
In doing so “the face” has been arbitrarily added to its meaningin order to make the verse: “Let them drape their headscarves over theirbusoms” appear to be in their favor, when, in fact it is not. The word khimaarlinguistically means only a head covering. Whenever it is mentioned in generalterms, this is what is intended. For example in the Hadiths on wiping (mas-h)on the khimaar and the prophetic statement, “The salaah of a woman past pubertywill not be accepted without a khimaar.” This hadith confirms the invalidity oftheir misinterpretation, because not even the extremists themselves – much lessthe scholars – use it as evidence that the covering of a woman's face in salaahis a condition for its validity. They only use it as proof for covering thehead. Furthermore, their interpretation of the verse of the Qawaa‘id “… to removetheir clothing” to mean “jilbaab” further confirms it. They hold that it ispermissible for old women to appear before marriageable males in her headscarfwith her face exposed. One of their notable scholars openly stated that. As forShaykh at-Tuwaijree, he implied it without actually saying it.
After checking the opinions of the early and later scholars in allthe specializations, I found that they unanimously hold that the khimaar is ahead covering. I have mentioned the names of more than twenty scholars, amongthem some of the great Imams and hadith scholars. For example, Abul-Waleedal-Baajee (d. 474 AH) who further added in his explanation, “Nothing should beseen of her besides the circle of her face.”
4. The claim of a consensus (Ijmaa‘) on the face being considered‘awrah.
Shaykh at-Tuwaijree claimed that scholars unanimously held thatthe woman's face was ‘awrah and many who have no knowledge, including somePh.D. holders, have blindly followed him. In fact, it is a false claim, whichno one before him has claimed. The books of Hambalite scholars which he learnedfrom, not to mention those of others, contain sufficient proof of itsfalsehood. I have mentioned many of their statements in Ar-Radd. For example,Ibn Hubayrah al-Hambalee stated in his book, al-Ifsaah, that the face is notconsidered ‘awrah in the three main schools of Islamic law and he added, “It isalso a narrated position of Imam Ahmad.” Many Hambalite scholars preferred thisnarration in their books, like Ibn Qudaamah and others. Ibn Qudaamah inal-Mughnee explained the reason for his preference saying, “Because necessitydemands that the face be uncovered for buying and selling, and the hands beuncovered for taking and giving.”
Among the Hambalite scholars, is the great Ibn Muflih al-Hambaleeabout whom Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said, “There is no one under the dome of thesky more knowledgeable about the school of Imam Ahmad than Ibn Muflih.” And histeacher, Ibn Taymiyyah, once told him, “You aren't Ibn Muflih, you are Muflih!”
It is incumbent on me to convey Ibn Muflih’s statements for thereaders because of the knowledge and many benefits contained in them. Includedin them is further confirmation of the falsehood of Shaykh at-Tuwaijree’s claimand support for the correctness of my position on the issue of uncovering theface. Ibn Muflih stated the following in his valuable work al-Aadaabash-Shar‘iyyah – which is among the references cited by Shaykh at-Tuwaijree(something which indicates that he is aware of it, but has deliberately hiddenthese crucial facts from his readers while claiming the contrary):
“Is it correct to chastise marriageable women if theyuncover their faces in the street?
The answer depends on whether it is compulsory for women to covertheir faces or whether it is compulsory for men to lower their gaze from her.There are two positions on this issue.
Regarding the hadith of Jareer in which he said, “I asked Allah’sMessenger about the sudden inadvertent glance and he instructed me to lookaway.” Al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad commented, “The scholars, May Allah Most High havemercy on them, have said that there is proof in this hadith that it is notcompulsory for a woman to cover her face in the street. Instead, it is arecommended Sunnah for her to do so and it is compulsory for the man to lowerhis gaze from her at all times, except for a legislated purpose. ShaykhMuhyud-deen an-Nawawee mentioned that without further explanation.” Thenal-Muflih mentioned Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement which at-Tuwaijree relies on in hisbook (page 170), while feigning ignorance of the statements of the majority ofscholars. Statements like those of al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad and an-Nawawee’s agreementwith it.
Then al-Muflih said, “On the basis of that, is chastisement legal?Chastisement is not allowed in issues in where there is a difference ofopinion, and the difference has already been mentioned. As regards our opinionand that of a group of Shaafi‘ite scholars and others, looking at amarriageable woman without desire or in a secluded circumstance is permissible.Therefore, chastisement is not proper.”
This answer is in complete agreement with Imam Ahmad’s statement,“It is not proper that a jurist oblige people to follow his opinion(math-hab).” And this is if the truth were on his side. What of the case wherethe jurist proudly, dishonestly misleads people and declares other Muslims tobe disbelievers as at-Tuwaijree did on page 249 of his book saying,
“… Whoever permits women to expose their faces and uses theproofs of al-Albaani has flung open the door for women to publicly flaunt theirbeauty and emboldened them to commit the reprehensible acts done by women whouncover their faces today.” And on page 233 he said, “… and to disbelief in theverses of Allah.”
Those are his words – May Allah reform him and guide him. Whatwould he say about Ibn Muflih, an-Nawawee, al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad and otherPalestinian scholars, as well as the majority of scholars who preceded them andwho are my salaf regarding my opinion on this matter?
5. The agreement of at-Tuwaijree and the extremists with him toexplain away the authentic Hadiths which contradict their opinion.
At-Tuwaijree did this with the Khath‘amiyyah hadith. Theydeveloped a number of comical methods to nullify its implications. I haverefuted them all in ar-Radd and one of them in Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah.Some reputable scholars have said that the hadith doesn’t contain a clearstatement that her face was exposed. This is among the farthest opinions fromthe truth. For, if her face wasn’t exposed, where did the narrator or theviewer get the idea that she was beautiful? And what was al-Fadl repeatedlylooking at? The truth is that this is among the strongest and most clear proofsthat a woman’s face is not ‘awrah. In spite of that, there remains a group thatinsists that she was in ihraam while knowing that her ihraam does not preventher from draping some of her clothing over her face. At-Tuwaijree does acceptsometimes that her face was uncovered but he cancels its implication by saying,“There is no evidence in it that she continuously exposed her face!” He meansthat the wind must have exposed her face and at that instant al-Fadl ibn‘Abbaas saw it. Is it possible for an Arab to say that after reading in thehadith “al-Fadl began to stare while turning towards her,” and in anothernarration “… so he began to look at her and her beauty amazed him.” Isn’t thispride with two protruding horns? At other times at-Tuwaijree interprets it asal-Fadl looking at her size and stature.
6. The frequent use of inauthentic Hadiths and unreliablenarrations.
For example, the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbaas about exposing only one eyeis commonly used by those who insist that women are obliged to cover theirfaces in spite of their knowledge of its inauthenticity. In fact, one amongthem also declared it inauthentic. Perhaps the most important of theseunreliable hadith commonly used as evidence is the one in which the Prophet isreported to have said, “Are you both blind?” They blindly followed at-Tuwaijreeand the others in claiming that this inauthentic narration was strengthened byother supportive narrations and that it was evidence for the prohibition ofwomen from looking at men, even if they are blind. They took this position inspite of the fact that the narration was classified inauthentic by the leadingverification experts among the hadith scholars like, Imam Ahmad, al-Bayhaqi andIbn ‘Abdil-Barr. Al-Qurtubee related that the narration was not consideredauthentic among the scholars of hadith. Consequently, many Palestinianhambalite scholars made their rulings on that basis. Furthermore, that is whatthe science of hadith and its methodology requires as was clearly stated inal-Irwaa. However, in spite of all that evidence to the contrary, Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qaadiras-Sindee had the nerve to go along with Shaykh at-Tuwaijree and others andclaim that its chain of narration was authentic. By doing that he exposedhimself and his ignorance or feigned ignorance. It is unfortunate that he tookthis position, because the hadeeth’s chain contains an unknown narrator fromwhom only one person narrated along with its contradiction to what leadingscholars have narrated. Contrary to the level of scholarship that we are usedto from Shaykh as-Sindee, he has brought in support of his claim the mostamazing things. He arguments unexpectedly contain deception, misguidance, blindfollowing, hiding knowledge and turning away from his own fundamentalprinciples. Among the amazing positions is Shaykh as-Sindee’s feigned ignorancethat the narration contradicts the hadith of Faatimah bint Qays which containsthe Prophet’s permission for her to stay at the home of the blind companion,Ibn Umm al-Maktoom, whom she would be able see. The Prophet gave the reason forthat instruction in his statement to her, “For if you take off your head scarf,he won’t see you.” In at-Tabaraanee’s narration from Faatimah, she said, “Heinstructed me to be at Ibn Umm Maktoom’s home because he couldn’t see mewhenever I took my head scarf off.”
There are also a number of other unreliable Hadiths gathered by at-Tuwaijree inhis book. I mentioned ten of them in my response, and among them are somefabricated traditions.
7. The classification of some authentic Hadiths and confirmednarrations from the Companions as inauthentic.
The extremists have declared well-established reliable narrationsas unreliable and feigned ignorance of strengthening narrations. They havefurther declared some narrations extremely inauthentic, like the hadith of‘Aa’ishah concerning the woman who reaches puberty, “Nothing should be seen ofher besides her face and hands.” They have persistently declared it inauthentic– the ignorant among them blindly following others devoid of knowledge. In sodoing, they contradict those among the leading scholars of hadith whostrengthen it like al-Bayhaqi and ath-Thahabee. Most of them, including someprominent scholars, feign ignorance of its various chains of narration. Infact, at-Tuwaijree openly stated on page 236 of his book that this statementwas only narrated in ‘Aa’ishah’s hadith. Even though he has seen with his owneyes on pages 57-9 of my book two other chains: one of which is from Asmaa bint‘Umays and the other from Qataadah in the abbreviated (mursal) format with anauthentic chain of narration. Many of the blind followers followed him,including some female authors as in Hijaabuki ukhtee al-muslimah [Your veil, mysister Muslim], page 33.
They also pretend to be ignorant of the leading hadith scholarsand others who strengthened it, like al-Munthiree, az-Zayla‘ee, al-‘Asqlaaneeand ash-Shawkaanee. Some of those who promote themselves as being among thewell versed in this noble science – in their forefront Shaykh as-Sindee – claimthat some of its narrations are extremely weak and unreliable in order toescape from the hadith science rule that ‘unreliable narrations arestrengthened by narrations similar to them’. In doing that, they delude theirreaders into thinking that no one ruled the weak narrators, like ‘Abdullaah ibnLahee‘ah, trustworthy and that they cannot be used as supportive evidence. Indoing that, they contradict the methodology of the hadith scholars in usingsupportive evidence. Among them is Imam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyyah – may Allahhave mercy on them. Likewise, they all feign ignorance that the scholars –among them Imam ash-Shaafi‘ee –confirm the hadith mursal if most scholars useit as evidence, as is the case of ‘Aa’ishah’s hadith.
Other strengthening factors may be added to the above.
(a) The hadith has been narrated by Qataadah from ‘Aa’ishah.
(b) It has been narrated in another chain from Asmaa.
(c) All three narrators of the hadith ruled according to it.
Qataadah stated in his interpretation of the verse on draping,“Allah has placed on them the requirement to cover the eyebrows,” That is, “andnot on their faces” as stated by at-Tabaree. ‘Aa’ishah said, regarding thefemale in ihraam, “She may drape the garment on her face, if she wishes.” Thiswas narrated by al-Bayhaqi in an authentic chain of narrators. There is clearevidence in ‘Aa’ishah’s giving the female pilgrim a choice in draping that inher opinion the face was not ‘awrah. Otherwise she would have made itobligatory on them as those who contradict it do. Because of their position,most of the extremist authors, with at-Tuwaijree in the forefront, hid thisstatement of Umm al-Mu’mineen, ‘Aa’ishah from their readers. The author ofFaslul-khitaab [The Definitive Statement] deliberately deleted this portion ofal-Bayhaqee’s narration in his book. This being only one of a number of similardisreputable acts which I have exposed in my book. The supportive evidence isthat this authentic narration from her strengthens her hadith from the Prophet.This is among the facts that people are unaware of or they pretend ignoranceof, either choice is bitter to swallow.
As for Asmaa, it has been authentically reported from Qays ibnAbee Haazim that he saw her as a woman of white complexion with tatoos on herhands.
(d) The narration of Ibn ‘Abbaas earlier mentioned, “She shouldpull the jilbaab (cloak) close to her face without putting it on her face.” Hisinterpretation of the verse of adornment “…except what appears from it” asreferring to“the face and hands” was similar. There is also a similar narrationfrom Ibn ‘Umar to the same effect.
At this point, a bitter reality must be noted due to the lessonswhich may be gained from it, the knowledge which it contains and is service asa reminder of the wise saying: “The truth is not know by people, know the truthand you will know people.”
At the same time that Shaykh at-Tuwaijree insists on rejecting thehadith of ‘Aa’ishah and its supporting evidences, among them Qaatadah’s mursalnarration, he willingly accepts another inauthentic hadith from her with mursalsupport. In that hadith it is mentioned “…that she wore a niqaab (face veil)…”and that she was supposed to have described the Prophet’s wife Safiyyah and theAnsaar women as “… a jewess among jewesses…” which is considered by scholars tobe a very erroneous statement (munkar jiddan). The Shaykh argues on page 181,“It has mursal supportive evidence,” and quotes one of the mursal Hadiths of‘Ataa containing a known liar in its chain of narration.
One should reflect on the great difference between this fabricated supportiveevidence and the authentic supportive evidence of Qataadah further supported byother evidences, then ask, “Why did at-Tuwaijree accept the second hadith of‘Aa’ishah and not the first?” The obvious answer is that the accepted onecontains reference to wearing the niqaab – even though it does not indicateobligation – while the rejected one denies it. Thus, in this regard, the Shaykhdid not base his position on Islamic legal principles, but on something similarto the Jewish principle: The ends justify the means. May Allah help us.
8. Placing unreasonable conditions
Among the amazing practices of some latter day blind following Hanafischolars and others is that on one hand they agree with us regarding thepermissibility of women exposing their faces, because that was the position oftheir Imams, but on the other hand they agree with the extremists in oppositionto their Imams. They make ijtihaad (while claiming taqleed) by adding thecondition that the society be safe from fitnah to the position of the Imams.This refers to the fitnah caused by women to men. Then one of the ignorantcontemporary blind followers went to the extreme of actually attributing this“condition” to the Imams themselves. Among some of those having no knowledge,this resulted in their concluding that there is essentially no differencebetween the position of the Imams and the extremists.
It is obvious to jurists that this condition is invalid because it implies thathumans know something which the Lord missed knowing. That is, the temptation ofwomen did not exist during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) thus we had to createa special ruling for it which did not exist previously. In fact, the fitnah didexist during the era of divine legislation and the story of al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbaas’trial with the Khath‘amiyyah woman and his repeated looking at her is not farfrom the readers’ memories.
It is well known that when Allah Most High instructed men andwomen to lower their gazes and instructed women to veil themselves in front ofmen, He did that to block the road to corruption and prevent temptation. Inspite of that, He – Most Great and Glorious – did not command that they covertheir faces and hands in front of them. The Prophet (pbuh) further emphasizedthat in the story of al-Fadl by not commanding the woman to cover her face. AndAllah was truthful when He said, “And your Lord is not forgetful.”
The reality is that the condition of there not being fitnah wasonly mentioned by scholars regarding the man’s looking at the woman’s face, asin al-Fiqh ‘alaa al-mathaahib al-arba‘ah, page 12. They said, “That [thewoman’s face may be uncovered] is permissible on condition that there is safetyfrom temptation,” and that is true, contrary to what the blind followerspractice. They conclude from it that the woman is obliged to cover her face,when in fact it is not a necessary consequence. They know that the condition ofsafety from temptation also applies to women. For it is not permissible forthem to stare at a man’s face except where there is safety from temptation. Isit then a necessary consequence that men also veil their faces from women toprevent temptation as some tribes called the Tawareg do.
They would have a basis in fiqh of the Quraan and Sunnah if theysaid that a woman veiled in correct jilbaab who fears being harmed by somecorrupt individuals due to her face being exposed is obliged to cover her faceto prevent harm and temptation. In fact, it could even be said that it isobligatory on her not to leave her home if she feared that some evilauthorities supported by a leader who does not rule by what Allah revealed, a***ists in some Arab countries since a few years ago, would pull her jilbaabfrom her head. As to making this obligation a compulsory law for all womeneverywhere and in all eras, even if there did not exist any harm for veiledwomen, No. Absolutely not. Allah was truthful when He said, “Do they havepartners who legislated for them in the religion what Allah did not permit?”
These are the most significant of the extremist opposition’smistakes which I thought needed brief mention due their strong link to thecontents of this book. I then closed ar-Radd al-Mufhim with a reminder thatextremism in the religion – considering that the Wise Legislator forbade itwill not bring any good. And it is not possible for it to produce a generationof young Muslim women carrying Islamic knowledge and practice moderatelybalanced, with neither excesses nor deficiencies. Not like what I have heardabout some young female adherents in Arab countries when they heard theProphet’s statement, “The woman in ihraam should neither wear a niqaab norgloves,” they did not accept it saying instead, “We will wear our niqaabs andgloves!” No doubt, this was a direct result of the extremist views which theyheard regarding the obligation of covering their faces.
I certainly cannot imagine that this type of extremism – and thisis only one example from many which I have – can possibly produce for ussalafee women able to do everything their religiously guided social lifedemands of them in a way similar to the righteous women of the Salaf.
via منتديات ماجدة http://majdah.maktoob.com/vb/majdah323802/?amp;goto=newpost
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق