Tweet
Niqab Between Obligation and Desirability
/ Shiekh Hany Helmy
However, this dispute disappears if a woman’s face is so beautiful that it might cause Fitnah (sedition), for in this case covering the face becomes obligatory.It is claimed that Niqab is irrelevant to our religion If we look into this issue, we will discover that the object of dispute between scholars revolve around its being either Wajib (obligatory) or Mustahab (desirable).
The most important thing to be noticed with respect to theMadh-hab (School of Jurisprudence) adopted by those who opine that it is Mustahab is that their view includes two important things:
First: They deem veiling (the face) as Mustahab, which means that they consider it more preferable than unveiling, since Desirability is paramount over Permissibility.With respect to permissibility, doing the act or quitting it is neutral, but regarding desirability: it is preferable to do that which is Mustahab.
Second: They stipulate a condition to permit revealing which is the safety from Fitnah, and Fitnah herein denotes the beauty of a woman, her age (i.e., to be young), and the appearance of obscene persons in multitude.Accordingly, it becomes known that their permissibility is restricted not absolute; it is restricted to the assurance of safety from Fitnah, and the preference of veiling (the face).Those who hold the opinion adopting the desirability had abided by this condition which was reflected on their attitudes:Regarding the condition, their abidance by it led them to approve those who deem it obligatory in some cases, thus they rendered covering obligatory in case of Fitnah.Consequently, there had been a consensus on the obligation of covering in case of Fitnah, those advocating the obligation deemed it obligatory in all cases, while others who opined the desirability deemed it obligatory in case of Fitnah as well. Hence their consensus on its being as Wajib in case of Fitnah became veritable, since they all agreed on this ruling in that case; one with respect to the origin and the other with respect to the condition.As for desirability, their abidance by it prevented them from inviting to, spreading and urging women to adopt their Madh-hab, thus, they did not write separate compilations to advocate their opinion passing unveiling. For they weren’t to replace what is lower with that which is better!!
This had resulted in a very important consequent; a practical consensus represented in prohibiting women to go out unveiled, therefore, their scholarly theoretical disagreement had not influenced the reality, but unfortunately, this was not realized by those who call nowadays for unveiling basing their claims on the opinion of such scholars...!!
The summary of their views:
Three consensuses: One regarding covering with respect to spouses, another with respect to covering in case of Fitnah, and a third practical consensus on prohibiting women to go out unveiled. These are the Madh-habs mentioned in this issue…And that was the case all over the past centuries: a theoretical disagreement wiped out by a practical agreementThis was reflected on the condition of women, for throughout thirteen centuries, the time of the Islamic Reign, they never went out unveiling their faces, and this was narrated and proved by a group of scholars including:Abu-Hamid Al-Ghazaly, who lived within the fifth century (died in 505 a.h) in Levant and Iraq, he mentioned in his book (Ihyaa’ `Ulum Al-Din): “And men throughout the age continued to go out unveiling their faces, while women used to go out wearing Niqab”Al-Imam Al-Nawawy, who lived in the seventh century and transcribed in his book (Rawdat Al-Talibeen) the agreement on this by saying on the ruling regarding looking to a woman: “and the second: it is prohibited, mentioned by Al-Astakhary and Abu Ya`la Al-Tabary, and this opinion was chosen by Shaykh Abu Muhammad, and Al-Imam, and declared asserted by the owner of “Al-Muhadhab” and Al-Ruyany, and Al-Imam directed to it by the agreement of all Muslims on prohibiting women to go out unveiled (from the face), and that looking is a reason for causing Fitnah, as it steers one’s desire, thus what befits the good morals of Shari`ah (Islamic Law) is to block this mean and refrain from the details of such conditions such as staying alone with an Ajnabiyyah )non-Mahram[not a spouse or an unmarriageable relative](“Ibn Hayyan Al-Andalusy the linguistic exegete, who lived in the eighth century, he mentioned in his Tafsir (explanation/exegesis of the meanings of the Qur'an) “Al-Bahr Al-Muheet”: “and this is accustomed here in Andalus, that a woman cannot reveal but only one eye”Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalany, who lived in the ninth century, he mentioned in “Al-Fath”: “The persistence of permitting women to go out to the Masjids (mosques) and markets, and in traveling wearing Niqab so that men cannot see them”
Ibn Raslan who narrated: “the agreement of Muslims on forbidding women from going out unveiling their faces especially on the existence of many obscene persons”
This was the case in the beginning of the last century, as painting appeared before about one hundred and fifty years, and painters had portrayed many situations in the Islamic countries from more than almost a hundred years.They included some of the conditions of women in Muslim countries: Turkistan, India, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Levant, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria.All veiled women were wearing full Hijab (veil), even in remote Islamic territories such as the island of Zanzibar in south Africa in the Indian Ocean, and I visited it on 1420 a.h and we entered its old museum and saw the pictures of their Turkish Sultans and their women and they were all veiled in the previously mentioned way.We also have evidence in this age: it is the Afghani woman, whose full veil covers all over her body even her face, which is so much similar to the way these women were like in other countries.
This is the most explicit evidence, for pictures are certain evidence, woman kept abiding by this full Hijab (veil) until recently and this Sufur (unveiling the face) did not appear except after the emergence of colonialism and westernization, for among the priorities of the colonist was: The removal of women’s Hijab, and the deactivation of acting upon the Shari`ah.
Gladstone said in his famous speech: “The Eastern countries cannot move forward except by two things: removing Hijab of Muslim women, and covering the Qur’an therewith”. Based on this, two ways were taken in order to achieve these two objectives: Strength and Shubhah (doubtful matter), and the most serious of which is the way of Shubhah..!!
The venoms of Shubhah around unveiling
Those who called and invited to unveiling through pulpits, newspapers, and books on the grounds that this is a controversial issue, as they looked into the heritage of Islam, traced the disputable matters, and quoted therefrom in support of their claims, thus they became similar to the orientalists, however the difference between both is that orientalists searched and investigated to refute Islam itself, while those searched and investigated to doubt established applied rulings such as:Women’s Hijab, especially unveiling the face.They found that some scholars permit it but on the condition of being safe from Fitnah.
Thus, they took their opinions disregarding their conditions..!! They also took their opinion adopting permissibility and abandoned their opinion adopting desirability…!!Moreover, they attributed their new innovated saying on the absolute permissibility of revealing the face -without restricting or conditioning it to the desirability- to these scholars!! For they did not keep the trust, or adjust the attribution of their saying, rather, they claimed that this was the opinion of Al-Jumhur (dominant majority of Scholars)…!!!And they surely were not to belong or be attributed to those scholars by dint of their innovated saying!!
Sufur (unveiling the face) and development:
They also linked Sufur with development claiming that this was the reason behind the deterioration of the nation, by virtue of women’s Hijab and her keeping away from the fields of men. Many people listened to them and followed their ideas, due to the absence of chasteness, the feebleness of conviction. Therefore, they patterned after these thoughts, and applied them leading to the evolvement of an unprecedented and queer event that is totally alien to the morals of Muslims, for she went out unveiled resembling Kuffar (Disbeliever) women in their clothing!!Women became just as those liberals wanted them to be like, and many centuries lapsed. Further, another century is about to lapse and these liberal countries are still among the third world countries, where on earth is the development attained for women after unveiling the face, assuming Tabarruj (women dressed immodestly in violation of the Islamic dress code), intermingling with men, and getting out from their houses??!!!
/ Shiekh Hany Helmy
Niqab revolves between only two (Obligation and Desirability)
The ruling on Niqab (Face veil) is controversial, thus, we should not judge on the invalidation of a certain ruling rather than the other, it is also impermissible to fanaticize about one’s own opinion, since the freedom of choice is a right for everyone. However, this dispute disappears if a woman’s face is so beautiful that it might cause Fitnah (sedition), for in this case covering the face becomes obligatory.It is claimed that Niqab is irrelevant to our religion If we look into this issue, we will discover that the object of dispute between scholars revolve around its being either Wajib (obligatory) or Mustahab (desirable).
The most important thing to be noticed with respect to theMadh-hab (School of Jurisprudence) adopted by those who opine that it is Mustahab is that their view includes two important things:
First: They deem veiling (the face) as Mustahab, which means that they consider it more preferable than unveiling, since Desirability is paramount over Permissibility.With respect to permissibility, doing the act or quitting it is neutral, but regarding desirability: it is preferable to do that which is Mustahab.
Second: They stipulate a condition to permit revealing which is the safety from Fitnah, and Fitnah herein denotes the beauty of a woman, her age (i.e., to be young), and the appearance of obscene persons in multitude.Accordingly, it becomes known that their permissibility is restricted not absolute; it is restricted to the assurance of safety from Fitnah, and the preference of veiling (the face).Those who hold the opinion adopting the desirability had abided by this condition which was reflected on their attitudes:Regarding the condition, their abidance by it led them to approve those who deem it obligatory in some cases, thus they rendered covering obligatory in case of Fitnah.Consequently, there had been a consensus on the obligation of covering in case of Fitnah, those advocating the obligation deemed it obligatory in all cases, while others who opined the desirability deemed it obligatory in case of Fitnah as well. Hence their consensus on its being as Wajib in case of Fitnah became veritable, since they all agreed on this ruling in that case; one with respect to the origin and the other with respect to the condition.As for desirability, their abidance by it prevented them from inviting to, spreading and urging women to adopt their Madh-hab, thus, they did not write separate compilations to advocate their opinion passing unveiling. For they weren’t to replace what is lower with that which is better!!
This had resulted in a very important consequent; a practical consensus represented in prohibiting women to go out unveiled, therefore, their scholarly theoretical disagreement had not influenced the reality, but unfortunately, this was not realized by those who call nowadays for unveiling basing their claims on the opinion of such scholars...!!
The summary of their views:
Three consensuses: One regarding covering with respect to spouses, another with respect to covering in case of Fitnah, and a third practical consensus on prohibiting women to go out unveiled. These are the Madh-habs mentioned in this issue…And that was the case all over the past centuries: a theoretical disagreement wiped out by a practical agreementThis was reflected on the condition of women, for throughout thirteen centuries, the time of the Islamic Reign, they never went out unveiling their faces, and this was narrated and proved by a group of scholars including:Abu-Hamid Al-Ghazaly, who lived within the fifth century (died in 505 a.h) in Levant and Iraq, he mentioned in his book (Ihyaa’ `Ulum Al-Din): “And men throughout the age continued to go out unveiling their faces, while women used to go out wearing Niqab”Al-Imam Al-Nawawy, who lived in the seventh century and transcribed in his book (Rawdat Al-Talibeen) the agreement on this by saying on the ruling regarding looking to a woman: “and the second: it is prohibited, mentioned by Al-Astakhary and Abu Ya`la Al-Tabary, and this opinion was chosen by Shaykh Abu Muhammad, and Al-Imam, and declared asserted by the owner of “Al-Muhadhab” and Al-Ruyany, and Al-Imam directed to it by the agreement of all Muslims on prohibiting women to go out unveiled (from the face), and that looking is a reason for causing Fitnah, as it steers one’s desire, thus what befits the good morals of Shari`ah (Islamic Law) is to block this mean and refrain from the details of such conditions such as staying alone with an Ajnabiyyah )non-Mahram[not a spouse or an unmarriageable relative](“Ibn Hayyan Al-Andalusy the linguistic exegete, who lived in the eighth century, he mentioned in his Tafsir (explanation/exegesis of the meanings of the Qur'an) “Al-Bahr Al-Muheet”: “and this is accustomed here in Andalus, that a woman cannot reveal but only one eye”Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalany, who lived in the ninth century, he mentioned in “Al-Fath”: “The persistence of permitting women to go out to the Masjids (mosques) and markets, and in traveling wearing Niqab so that men cannot see them”
Ibn Raslan who narrated: “the agreement of Muslims on forbidding women from going out unveiling their faces especially on the existence of many obscene persons”
This was the case in the beginning of the last century, as painting appeared before about one hundred and fifty years, and painters had portrayed many situations in the Islamic countries from more than almost a hundred years.They included some of the conditions of women in Muslim countries: Turkistan, India, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Levant, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria.All veiled women were wearing full Hijab (veil), even in remote Islamic territories such as the island of Zanzibar in south Africa in the Indian Ocean, and I visited it on 1420 a.h and we entered its old museum and saw the pictures of their Turkish Sultans and their women and they were all veiled in the previously mentioned way.We also have evidence in this age: it is the Afghani woman, whose full veil covers all over her body even her face, which is so much similar to the way these women were like in other countries.
This is the most explicit evidence, for pictures are certain evidence, woman kept abiding by this full Hijab (veil) until recently and this Sufur (unveiling the face) did not appear except after the emergence of colonialism and westernization, for among the priorities of the colonist was: The removal of women’s Hijab, and the deactivation of acting upon the Shari`ah.
Gladstone said in his famous speech: “The Eastern countries cannot move forward except by two things: removing Hijab of Muslim women, and covering the Qur’an therewith”. Based on this, two ways were taken in order to achieve these two objectives: Strength and Shubhah (doubtful matter), and the most serious of which is the way of Shubhah..!!
The venoms of Shubhah around unveiling
Those who called and invited to unveiling through pulpits, newspapers, and books on the grounds that this is a controversial issue, as they looked into the heritage of Islam, traced the disputable matters, and quoted therefrom in support of their claims, thus they became similar to the orientalists, however the difference between both is that orientalists searched and investigated to refute Islam itself, while those searched and investigated to doubt established applied rulings such as:Women’s Hijab, especially unveiling the face.They found that some scholars permit it but on the condition of being safe from Fitnah.
Thus, they took their opinions disregarding their conditions..!! They also took their opinion adopting permissibility and abandoned their opinion adopting desirability…!!Moreover, they attributed their new innovated saying on the absolute permissibility of revealing the face -without restricting or conditioning it to the desirability- to these scholars!! For they did not keep the trust, or adjust the attribution of their saying, rather, they claimed that this was the opinion of Al-Jumhur (dominant majority of Scholars)…!!!And they surely were not to belong or be attributed to those scholars by dint of their innovated saying!!
Sufur (unveiling the face) and development:
They also linked Sufur with development claiming that this was the reason behind the deterioration of the nation, by virtue of women’s Hijab and her keeping away from the fields of men. Many people listened to them and followed their ideas, due to the absence of chasteness, the feebleness of conviction. Therefore, they patterned after these thoughts, and applied them leading to the evolvement of an unprecedented and queer event that is totally alien to the morals of Muslims, for she went out unveiled resembling Kuffar (Disbeliever) women in their clothing!!Women became just as those liberals wanted them to be like, and many centuries lapsed. Further, another century is about to lapse and these liberal countries are still among the third world countries, where on earth is the development attained for women after unveiling the face, assuming Tabarruj (women dressed immodestly in violation of the Islamic dress code), intermingling with men, and getting out from their houses??!!!
تعليق