im back

After a Long time I have decided I will resurrect this blog and put my utterances down . So hAPPY RAMADAN to all my readers.

ON THE ISSUE OF NIQAB OR COVERING THE FACE

Examining the Dalils for Niqab



The dalils for niqab are presented here (they are taken from Niqaab in Light of Quran and Sahih Hadith), displayed in red. My comments have been interleaved and appear in black. Some additional points are made at the end of the niqab dalils.

The Niqaab in light of the Holy Quran and Sahih Hadith

Examining the Quran

The text presented here as the Quran does not represent a very literal translation of the Quran. Instead, the translator has inserted his commentary in parenthetical notes. This is very unfortunate, as it gives a misleading idea of what the Arabic text of the Quran revealed by Allah SWT actually says. Moreover, this could not be done in the Arabic text - can you imagine inserting your own words in the Quran?!

From the Quran.....(This tafseer is Agreed upon by Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtabi and At-Tabari)

The Noble Qur'an ........

A) Surah Al-Ahzaab, Verse #59

‘O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks ("Jalabib") veils all over their bodies (screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way Tafseer Al-Qurtabi) that is most convenient that they should be known (as such) and not molested: and Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful."

The Arabic text of this ayah is, "Ya ayyuha an-Nabi, qul li azwajika wa banatika wa nisa al-muminin yudnina alayhinna min jalabib hinna; dhalika adna an yu'rafna fa laa yu'dhayn. Wa kana Allahu Ghafur ar-Rahim", which literally translates as, "O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (jalabib) close around themselves; that is better that they are recognized and not annoyed. And God is Most Forgiving, Merciful". There are actually a number of opinions given in the tafsir about what "draw their jalabib close around themselves" means. Among these are, "she should bring the jilbab close to her face without covering it" (reported by ibn Abbas in the tafsir of Tabari, and graded as sahih by Shaykh Albani), and, "Others believe that the women have been directed to secure their jalabib firmly on their foreheads" (commentary of Tabari in his tafsir of this ayah). Thus we can see that it is a valid opinion that the jilbab does not have to cover the face.

Note: Because there is a very strong case to be made that the jilbab at the time of revelation of this ayah did cover the face, I have also written an essay called What is the Final Rule on Hijab? which accepts that Surah al-Ahzab ayah 59 does command covering the face but argues that niqab is still not fard.

B) Surah An-Nur, Verses #30 and #31

‘And Say to the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) 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, head cover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)

The "translation" of this ayah is particularly poor. The Arabic text is, "Wa qul li al-muminat yaghdudna min absarihinna wa yahfazna furujahunna wa laa yubdina zenatahunna illa maa zahara min haa wal-yadribna bi khumurihinna alaa juyub hinna". This is properly translated as, "And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their adornment except what is apparent of it, and to extend their khumur to cover their juyub". First, the word "juyub". This is the plural of the word "jayb", which means "bosom". The word is used in Arabic to refer to the breastpocket of a shirt, and to a certain type of mathematical curve. As well, Surah al-Qasas ayah 32 describes Moses as putting his hand in his "jayb", and this means his breast, not his "body, face, neck and bosom"!!! Whoever has translated "juyub" as "bodies, faces, necks, and bosoms" does not understand the Arabic language very well! To read about the mathematics, see The Origin of the Word Sine. To see an image of this curve, click here. Let's just say that, for most people, the image should remove any doubt over what part of a woman's body a "jayb" is! So I'm sorry whoever wrote this, "juyub" means "bosoms". There is no way to get the meaning of "bodies" or "faces" out of it, period. There is also the question of the meaning of "except what is apparent of it". The interpretation inserted here basically is that it refers to the outer surface of the garments that a woman customarily wears. This is the opinion of the Sahabi, ibn Masud (rAa). But it is hardly the only opinion! Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi has provided an excellent survey of the opinions on this subject, which can be found in his book The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam. A summary is that of the Sahaba, Aisha Umm al-Muminin (rAa), ibn Abbas (rAa), Anas ibn Malik (rAa), and Miswar ibn Makhrama (rAa), and of the Tabi'un, Sa'id ibn Jubair (rAa), Ata (rAa), Qatada (rAa), al-Dahhak (rAa), Mujahid (rAa), and al-Hasan (rAa) all said that the meaning of "what is apparent of it" is "the face and hands". This is in fact the majority position on the meaning of this verse. The commentators on the Quran Tabari, Razi, Zamakhshari, and Qurtubi have all taken this position. Clearly then, this ayah of the Quran has not been taken by most scholars to command niqab.

Note: I have written an essay on this ayah, which is at A Study of Surah an-Nur ayah 31.

Examining the hadiths

Here are some hadiths that have been presented claiming that they prove niqab is fard. Each of the hadiths is analyzed in turn.

From the Hadith.....

A) Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Hadith # 282

Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba (Radhiallaahu Ánha) "Aisha (Radhiallaahu Ánha) used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces.

The Arabic text that the translator has rendered "covered their faces with the cut pieces" is "ikhtamarna bi ha" or "made khimars from it". The hadith therefore means that the women tore their sheets and made khimars from the cut pieces. The word "faces" does not even appear in the Arabic. So far all we know is that when Surah an-Nur ayah 31 commanded women to wear the khimar, they did so. This hadith does not indicate by itself what that khimar is.

B) Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Hadith # 368

Narrated 'Aisha (Radhiallaahu Ánha) Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized . Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains "This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah (swt) with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path? (Ibn Uthaimin in the book "Hijaab" page #12 and 13)

The same story of the women going out to salat al-fajr is told in several other hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim. In these, the Arabic text says clearly that they were "unrecognized due to the darkness". It does not say that they were unrecognized due to their veiling. In fact we can't tell just from this hadith whether or not the veiling sheets (murut) cover the faces. To see the Arabic text of the hadith with the indicated phrase underlined, click here. Also, as noted above, there are some opinions that the jilbab does not have to cover the face.

C) Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Hadith # 148

Narrated 'Aisha (Radhiallaahu Ánha): The wives of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).

The "verse of al-hijab" mentioned in this hadith is Surah al-Ahzab ayah 53, which is addressed to Ummahat al-Muminin (rAa). The command does not apply to ordinary Muslim women. The claim that this ayah commands "the observing of veils by Muslim women" has been inserted by the translator and does not appear in the Arabic text.

D) Tirmidhi with a SAHIH chain reports...

"Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said “All of a woman is ‘awrah.” (Shaikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid quotes this hadith narrated by Tirmidhi with a sahih isnaad and says this is a direct hadith from Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam ) and has made it clear that a woman must cover everything including the face and hands!)

The issue of the awra is in fact quite complicated. A woman has two kinds of awra. The first, which is sometimes called the "hard awra", is from the upper chest to the knee or below. This cannot be seen by anybody but her husband. The second kind of awra is sometimes called the "soft awra", and it is everything that cannot be seen by non-mahram men. Obviously, the Tirmidhi hadith cannot be talking about the hard awra, or it would mean that a woman would have to wear niqab even around her brothers and father because they cannot see her hard awra. Instead, the hadith must be taken to mean that the woman is "soft awra". It is interesting to see what some notable scholars have said about the extent of the soft awra. Imam ibn Qudama, who wrote the definitive book of Hanbali fiqh, the Mughni, said that, "the face and hands constitute a specific exemption to the general meaning of this hadith". Imam Tabari, who wrote a great tafsir of the Quran, said, "The strongest and most accurate view is that which says the exemption [in 24:31 for "what is apparent thereof"] refers to the face and the hands up to the wrist. Also included are kohl, rings, bracelets, and makeup. We say that this is the strongest and most accurate opinion because all scholars are unanimous that everyone who needs to pray must cover the awra in his or her prayer. A woman may reveal the face and the hands in her prayer, while she must cover the rest of her body. What is not awra is not haram to be revealed". Fakhr ad-Din Razi, who also wrote a great tafsir of the Quran, said, "Since the showing of the face and hands is necessary, the jurists had no choice but to agree that they are not awra". Here we have three great scholars saying that the face and the hands are not awra and that they consitute "a specific exemption to the general meaning of this hadith".

E) Abu Dawood Book 14, Hadith # 2482

Narrated Thabit ibn Qays (Radhiallaahu Ánhu): A woman called Umm Khallad came to the Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) while she was veiled. She was searching for her son who had been killed (in the battle) Some of the Companions of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said to her: You have come here asking for your son while veiling your face? She said: If I am afflicted with the loss of my son, I shall not suffer the loss of my modesty. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said: You will get the reward of two martyrs for your son. She asked: Why is that so, oh Prophet of Allah? He replied: Because the people of the Book have killed him.

This hadith does indeed show Umm Khallad (rAa) wearing niqab, but it is interesting that the Sahaba (rAa) marveled at her doing so. Would they have been marveling if she just did what was commanded for her? More generally, we can say that this hadith proves that women did wear niqab, but they may have been doing so because it is mustahabb, so there needs to be some other evidence to make it fard.

F) Abu Dawood Book 32, Hadith # 4090

Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu'minin (Radhiallaahu Ánha): When the verse "That they should cast their outer garments over their persons" was revealed, the women of Ansar came out as if they had crows over their heads by wearing outer garments.

In this hadith the women came out in their new jilbabs. The description "like they had crows on their heads" does not necessarily mean that their faces were covered. All it sounds like is that their heads were covered. This is another opinion (in addition to the ones listed under Surah al-Ahzab ayah 59 above) that the jilbab does not necessarily have to cover the face.

G) Abu Dawood Book 32, Hadith # 4091

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin (Radhiallaahu Ánha) "May Allah have mercy on the early immigrant women. When the verse "That they should draw their veils over their bosoms" was revealed, they tore their thick outer garments and made veils from them. Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalanee, who is known as Ameer Al-Mu'mineen in the field of Hadith, said that the phrase, "covered themselves", in the above Hadith means that they "covered their faces". [Fath Al-Bari].

This is the same as the hadith in part A above, except that the translator has rendered the Arabic more accurately as "made veils". As stated above, the text of this hadith does not mention anything about covering the face. Ibn Hajar had to read this in to make it say that.

H) Imaam Malik's MUWATTA Book 20 Hadith # 20.5.16

Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa that Fatima bint al-Mundhir (Radhiallaahu Ánha) said, "We used to veil our faces when we were in Ihram in the company of Asma bint Abi Bakr As-Siddiq (Radhiallaahu Ánha). "This again proves that not only the wives of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) wore the Niqaab and that even though in Ihram women are not supposed to wear Niqaab but if men are there they still have to cover the face.

The issue of niqab and ihram is in fact one of the big controversies, and a problem for those who say that niqab is fard. It is very clear that the Prophet (sAas) said that a woman in ihram must not wear either a niqab or gloves. Nobody has ever given a convincing explanation of why in the world the Prophet (sAas) said this in the first place if it were fard to cover the face. This is especially true because the obligatory duties of the hajj must be done in public, and in general there are very large crowds around. If a woman is supposed to cover her face anyway around non-mahram men, she really has to cover it at all times on the hajj and that is just the same as wearing niqab. Instead, the Prophet (sAas) has clearly commanded that a woman should have an uncovered face in public while in ihram; that's the only thing that makes sense. As for Asma (rAa), it appears that she followed the course of Ummahat al-Muminin (rAa), which is discussed in the next hadith. That she did so does not prove that doing so is fard, merely that it is halal.

I) Abu Dawood Book 10, Hadith # 1829

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: (Radhiallaahu Ánha) who said, "The riders would pass us while we were with the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam). When they got close to us, we would draw our outer cloak from our heads over our faces. When they passed by, we would uncover our faces.

Recorded by Ahmad, Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah, Narrated 'Aisha. [In his work Jilbab al-Marah al-Muslimah, al-Albani states (p. 108) that it is hasan due to corroborating evidence. Also, in a narration from Asma {who was not the wife of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam)}, Asma also covered her face at all times in front of men.] Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in his tafseer of this hadith explains "This hadith indicates the compulsion of the concealing of the faces as an order of Shariah, because during the Ihram it is "wajib" (compulsory) NOT to wear the Niqaab. So if it was only mustahab (recommended) to cover the face then Aisha and Asma (Radhiallaahu Ánha) would have taken the wajib over the mustahab. It is well known by the Ullima that a wajib can only be left because of something that is also wajib or fardh. So Aisha and Asma (Radhiallaahu Ánha) covering the face even in Ihram in the presence of strange (ghairMahraam) men shows that they understood this to be an act that was wajib or fardh or they would not have covered the face in Ihraam.

Here is the description of Aisha Umm al-Muminin (rAa) in ihram. When it comes to Ummahat al-Muminin (rAa) it is fard for them to wear niqab (from Surah al-Ahzab ayah 53). Thus when presented with the Prophet's (sAas) command for bare faces, they found the best compromise solution they could, which was to cover their faces only when non-mahram men were around, and then to uncover them again when the men went away. It is one thing for the Prophet (sAas) to ask nine women (i.e., his wives) to do this, another thing for him to demand that all women at all times through history must do so. Why not just keep silent and let the women wear their niqabs? Also note that the author claims that the women disobeyed the command of the Prophet (sAas) in order to obey the Quran - since when would the Prophet (sAas) be giving a command that contradicts the Quran?????? It is strange how this glaring contradiction escapes those who want to argue that niqab is fard. If the Prophet (sAas) told women to unveil their faces in public, clearly this is a halal action, period.

J) Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Hadith # 715

Narrated 'Ikrima (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) narrates "Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil." It is a very long hadith but the point is the women of Sahaba wore the full veil.

The wife of Rifa'a was wearing a green khimar. This is the same point that has been made above - this hadith merely shows a woman obeying the command in Surah an-Nur ayah 31 to wear a khimar, it does not say anything in itself to indicate that the khimar must cover the face. It is interesting to look at the full text of this hadith, which can be found here. After having described the wife of Rifa'a as wearing a green khimar, Aisha (rAa) says to the Prophet (sAas) "Look! Her skin is as green as her clothes". If the woman were wearing "the full veil" how could any of her skin be visible for the Prophet (sAas) to look at? In any case, at most her face or her hands could be showing. It seems most likely that it was her face that was green. If this is true, then the khimar definitely does not cover the face.

K) Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Hadith # 347

Narrated Um 'Atiya (Radhiallaahu Ánha) We were ordered (by Rasulullah '(Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) to bring out our menstruating women and veiled women in the religious gatherings and invocation of Muslims on the two 'Eid festivals. These menstruating women were to keep away from their Musalla. A woman asked, "O Allah's Apostle ' What about one who does not have a veil (the veil is the complete cover with only one eye or two eyes showing)?" He said, "Let her share the veil of her companion." Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explained "This hadith proves that the general norm amongst the women of the Sahaba (Radhiallaahu Ánhuma) was that no woman would go out of her home without a cloak, fully concealed and if she did not posses a veil, then it was not possible for her to go out. it was for this reason that when Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) ordered them to go to the Place for Eid Salah, they mentioned this hindrance. As a result Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said that someone should lend her a veil, but did not say they could go out without it. If Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) did not allow women to go to a place like the Eid Salah, which has been ordered by Shariah for women and men alike, then how can people let women to out to market places and shopping centers without where there is open intermingling of the sexes, without a veil. (by Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in the book "Hijaab" page # 11)

This hadith concerns the wearing of the jilbab. The author of the article has stated correctly that the hadith proves that wearing the jilbab is indeed fard (which for some reason many sisters deny; see Evidences for Jilbab for more proof it is fard) but it does not in fact describe anywhere in it whether or not the jilbab is to cover the face. This is the same point made previously about the khimar and I have already said that there are some opinions that the jilbab does not necessarily have to cover the face.

L) Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Hadith # 572

In the end of this very long hadith it quotes Anas (Radhiallaahu Ánho) rates from Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) "and if one of the women of Paradise looked at the earth, she would fill the whole space between them (the earth and the heaven) with light, and would fill whatever is in between them, with perfume, and the veil of her face is better than the whole world and whatever is in it." This show that even the women of Junnah have veils and the word veil is what covers the face (niqaab).

Here the women of Jannah (i.e., the houris) are wearing niqabs. I really have no idea why this is included as a dalil. That the houris wear niqab does not say anything about whether it is fard for human women to do so, although it does indicate that niqab is mustahabb and characteristic of the best of women. Note that one does not usually imagine the houris as niqabis!!!

M) Abu Dawood Book 33, Hadith # 4154, Agreed upon by Nasai

Aisha(Radhiallaahu Ánha) narrates that on one occasion a female Muslim wanted to give a letter to the Holy Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam), the letter was delivered to the Holy Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) from behind a curtain.

Note: Quoted in the famous book Mishkaat. Here the Mufasereen of hadith have explained that the hadith where women came up to Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) face to face were before the ayah "And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen, that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts." (Surah Al­Ahzâb ayah # 53) And this hadith proves this order is for the whole Ummah not just for the wives of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam)!

It is very interesting to look up the complete text of this hadith, which can be found here. In the last part of it, the Prophet (sAas) commands the woman to wear henna on her hands in order to distinguish them from men's hands. I wonder why this part of the hadith has not been quoted! It seems to be clear proof that women can display their hands in public. In any case, the hadith merely shows that it is halal for all women to use the screen, not that it is fard.

N) Abu Dawood Book 2, Hadith # 0641

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin (Radhiallaahu Ánha) "Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said "Allah does not accept the prayer of a woman who has reached puberty unless she wears a veil."

Here women are commanded to wear a khimar for salat, even when alone. Now it gets interesting. The scholars are unanimous that a woman in private salat may uncover her face and her hands (this has been stated above by Imam Tabari). The khimar must in fact be a headscarf and not a niqab. Because if the khimar was a niqab, and the Prophet (sAas) has commanded women to wear khimars in salat, then they would of necessity be covering their faces in salat, but they do not do so. And if the khimar is only a headscarf, then we can go back to the hadith mentioned above (A and G) and say that when Surah an-Nur ayah 31 was revealed the women tore their sheets and made headscarves not niqabs out of the cut pieces. The wife of Rifa'a was wearing a green headscarf, not "the full veil", which makes it clear why her face was visible (see hadith J above).

O) Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Hadith # 293

Narrated 'Aisha (Radhiallaahu Ánha) Utba bin Abi Waqqas said to his brother Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas, "The son of the slave girl of Zam'a is from me, so take him into your custody." So in the year of Conquest of Mecca, Sa'd took him and said. (This is) my brother's son whom my brother has asked me to take into my custody." 'Abd bin Zam'a got up before him and said, (He is) my brother and the son of the slave girl of my father, and was born on my father's bed." So they both submitted their case before Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam). Sa'd said, "O Allah's Apostle! This boy is the son of my brother and he entrusted him to me." 'Abd bin Zam'a said, "This boy is my brother and the son of the slave girl of my father, and was born on the bed of my father." Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said, "The boy is for you, O 'Abd bin Zam'a!" Then Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) further said, "The child is for the owner of the bed, and the stone is for the adulterer," Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) then said to Sauda bint Zam'a, "Veil (screen) yourself before him," when he saw the child's resemblance to 'Utba. The boy did not see her again till he met Allah. note: This hadith proves Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) did infact order the veil to be observed.

Sawda bint Zam'a (rAa) is one of the wives of the Prophet (sAas)!!! That the Prophet (sAas) commanded her to use the screen only confirms that Ummahat al-Muminin (rAa) did so in obedience to Surah al-Ahzab ayah 53. This hadith does not say anything about ordinary Muslim women.

P) Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 7, Book 65, Hadith # 375

Narrated Anas (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) I know (about) the Hijab (the order of veiling of women) more than anybody else. Ubai bin Ka'b used to ask me about it. Allah's Apostle became the bridegroom of Zainab bint Jahsh whom he married at Medina. After the sun had risen high in the sky, the Prophet invited the people to a meal. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) remained sitting and some people remained sitting with him after the other guests had left. Then Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) got up and went away, and I too, followed him till he reached the door of 'Aisha's room. Then he thought that the people must have left the place by then, so he returned and I also returned with him. Behold, the people were still sitting at their places. So he went back again for the second time, and I went along with him too. When we reached the door of 'Aisha's room, he returned and I also returned with him to see that the people had left. Thereupon Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) hung a curtain between me and him and the Verse regarding the order for (veiling of women) Hijab was revealed.

This is also about Surah al-Ahzab ayah 53. The story is also told in Bukhari Book 60 #315, in which the specific ayah of the Quran Surah al-Ahzab ayah 53 is quoted in the text of the hadith. This ayah applies only to Ummahat al-Muminin (rAa). The phrase "veiling order for women" does not appear in the Arabic text.

Q) Abu Dawood Book 32, hadith # 4100

Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu'minin (Radhiallaahu Ánha): I was with Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) while Maymunah was with him. Then Ibn Umm Maktum came. This happened when we were ordered to observe veil. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said: Observe veil from him. We asked: oh Rasulullah! is he not blind? He can neither see us nor recognize us. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said: Are both of you blind? Do you not see him?

This hadith is even more interesting when you look at the full text of it, which can be found here. In this part, the hadith collector Abu Dawud comments that there is also a hadith that Fatima bint Qays (rAa) spent her iddat with ibn Umm Maktum (rAa). Abu Dawud concludes that Ummahat al-Muminin (rAa) must have a different rule than ordinary Muslim women like Fatima (rAa). This is certainly true. It is Surah al-Ahzab ayah 53 that is the special rule for Ummahat al-Muminin (rAa). I wonder why Abu Dawud's commentary on this hadith has not been quoted!



MUHAJABBA

Islamaphobia

If this onslaught was about Jews, I would be looking for my passport
Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday October 18, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian .co.uk/comment/ story/0,, 1924677,00. html

Politicians and media have turned a debate about integration into an ugly
drumbeat of hysteria against British Muslims

I've been trying to imagine what it must be like to be a Muslim in Britain.
I guess there's a sense of dread about switching on the radio or television,
even about walking into a newsagents. What will they be saying about us
today? Will we be under assault for the way we dress? Or the schools we go
to, or the mosques we build? Who will be on the front page: a terror
suspect, a woman in a veil or, the best of both worlds, a veiled terror
suspect.

Don't laugh. Last week the Times splashed on "Suspect in terror hunt used
veil to evade arrest". That sat alongside yesterday's lead in the Daily
Express: "Veil should be banned say 98%". Nearly all those who rang the
Express agreed that "a restriction would help to safeguard racial harmony
and improve communication" . At the weekend the Sunday Telegraph led on
"Tories accuse Muslims of 'creating apartheid by shutting themselves off' ".

That's how it's been almost every day since Jack Straw raised the matter of
the veil nearly two weeks ago. Even before, Muslims could barely open a
paper without seeing themselves on the front of it. David Cameron's speech
to the Tories a week earlier was trailed in advance as an appeal for Muslims
to open up their single-faith schools: "Ban Muslim ghettos" was one
headline.

Taken alone, each one of these topics could be the topic of a thoughtful,
nuanced debate. The veil, for example, has found feminists among both its
champions and critics, proving that it's no straightforward matter. There
should be nothing automatically anti-Muslim about raising the subject, not
least since many Muslim women question the niqab themselves.

Similarly, Ruth Kelly was hardly out of line in suggesting, as she did last
week, that the government needs to be careful about which Muslim groups it
funds and with whom it engages, ensuring it leans towards those who are
actively "tackling extremism". Other things being equal, that was a
perfectly sensible thing to say.

Except other things are not equal. Each one of these perfectly rational
subjects, taken together, has created a perfectly irrational mood: a kind of
drumbeat of hysteria in which both politicians and media have turned again
and again on a single, small minority, first prodding them, then pounding
them as if they represented the single biggest problem in national life.

The result is turning ugly and has, predictably, spilled on to the streets.
Muslim organisations report a surge in physical and verbal attacks on
Muslims; women have had their head coverings removed by force. A mosque in
Falkirk was firebombed while another in Preston was attacked by a gang
throwing bricks and concrete blocks.

Of course, such violence would be condemned by any politician asked about
it. But a climate is developing here and every time a politician raises a
question that would, on its own and in the quiet of the seminar room, be
legitimate for debate, they are adding to it. They should feel shame for
their reckless spraying of petrol on a growing blaze. Instead they applaud
themselves, and are applauded in the press, for their bravery in daring to
say what needs to be said.

In fact, the courageous politician would refuse to join this open season on
Muslims and seek to cool things down - beginning with an explanation of how
we got here. The elements include many of those that feature in any build-up
of hostility to a single, derided group, here or across the world.

The foundation is fear. Many Britons have since 9/11, and especially since
July 7, come to fear their Muslim neighbours: they worry that the young man
next to them on the train might have more than an extra sweater in his
backpack. Next comes ignorance, a simple lack of knowledge about Muslim life
which leaves non-Muslims open to all kinds of misconceptions. That feeds
into a simple discomfort, personified, in its most extreme form, by a woman
whose face we cannot see.

What's more, the set of issues that Islam raises for Britain are ones that
do not break down on the usual ideological lines, allowing liberals and
traditional anti-racists reflexively to line up alongside Muslims. The veil,
and the queasiness it stirs in many feminists, is one example. Faith schools
are another, prompting the ardent secularist to feel a sympathy for the
government position that ordinarily would come more slowly. The result is
that the Muslim community finds itself suddenly friendless. When it came to
opposing the war in Iraq, British Muslims had no shortage of allies, but
they face the latest bombardment virtually alone.

Muslims are not entirely passive in this drama. For one thing, the tiny
handful of Islamist groups such as al-Ghurabaa or the Saviour Sect tend to
confirm the wildest prejudices of those who fear Islam: they glorify those
who kill civilians, they show contempt for democracy and declare that, yes,
they are indeed determined to transform Britain into an Islamic state. Every
time they open their mouths, life for Muslims in Britain gets harder. (Which
is why the Today programme had no business giving over the prestigious
8.10am slot to Omar Brooks, whose sole qualification was his heckling of
John Reid the previous day.)

The majority of British Muslims could have done themselves a favour if they
had found a way to show just how unrepresentative Brooks and his ilk are.
How powerful it would have been if, after 7/7, hundreds of thousands of
British Muslims had taken to the streets to repudiate utterly the four
bombers who had killed in the name of Islam. The model might have been the
2000 Basque march in Bilbao in protest against ETA violence. Or perhaps the
1992 funeral of an assassinated anti-mafia judge in Palermo, which turned
into a rally of Sicilians against the crime organisation. The slogan for the
British Muslim equivalent would have been obvious: Not in our name.

But Muslims would be right to reply that they should be under no more
obligation to distance themselves from the 7/7 bombers than Britain's Irish
community were expected to denounce the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s. And
this, too, is a prime task for politicians and media alike - to distinguish
between radical, violent Islamism and mainstream British Islam. Too often,
the line between the two gets blurred, lazily and casually. Helpfully, the
1990 Trust yesterday published a survey which deserves wide dissemination.
They found that the number of Muslims who believed acts of terrorism against
civilians in the UK were justified was between 1% and 2%. Not good, but less
than the 20% or higher found by some newspaper polls. The trust reckons
those earlier polls asked a loaded question - and got a highly charged
answer.

Politicians and media need to be similarly careful when discussing
multiculturalism, refusing to play to those who believe it means a licence
to secession and Balkanisation. It doesn't. Multiculturalism means allowing
every group its own distinct identity and, at the same time, seeking an
integrated Britishness we all share. Tony Blair was correct yesterday to say
that the goal, never easy, is "getting the balance right".

Right now, we're getting it badly wrong - bombarding Muslims with pressure
and prejudice, laying one social problem after another at their door. I try
to imagine how I would feel if this rainstorm of headlines substituted the
word "Jew" for "Muslim": Jews creating apartheid, Jews whose strange customs
and costume should be banned. I wouldn't just feel frightened. I would be
looking for my passport.

freedland@guardian. co.uk

As a english born muslim I dread opening my papers or reading the news for what they are saying about us. I do not recognise half of what they are saying . I do not deny that we have problems in our community like any other community but do not tar us all with the same brush. Most muslims I know are intergretated into the community .

As for the Nirab (issue) very few women actually wear it and it is not an requirement of Islam that one should wear it . I do not wear it and I beleive that if sisters want to wear it is their choice; but I beleive that in some areas it would have the opposite effect and would draw attention to you .

  
This is a photo of my favourite city in the whole world . Their is no other place like it on earth . It radiates light it literally glows with light and it is so tranquil . It is a city truly of peace and tranquility

Open house to attack islam

Precious pearlIt seems that their is not a day that goes by without the media or Government attacking Islam in the Uk. Last week it was JacK Straw Attacking the Niqab . VEry few women wear it , Do you see them attacking Sikhs for wearing Turbans Sikhs are exempt from wearing Crash Helmets. A DAy later a Muslim Taxi Driver was fined for refusing to take a guide Dog into his cab he sad it was against his believes and countless other examples in the last two months or so .If it was any other group of people it would have been outlawed under the race relations law.
Then their have been the ones against an owner of a dairy allowing his workers to pray at work.
People Attacking
muslims and organisations have been having a field day. Muslims Schools have been searched no weapons or anything were found . If a muslim goes on an outward bound cause that Is Classed as terrorist Activity. Now we have been told of for not attending Holocaust Day. Why should it just be focused on Jews . Dont Forget the Palestiions were forcibly exiled and killed to make way for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Do not forget the millions that were killed in Russia,RWanda , Bosnia, Vietnam and Hiroshima. How long will it be before this hatred that is openly being spread verbally will actually turn violent and muslims end up being killed; Im really surprised it has not happened yet thank God .

Precious pearl

Precious pearlAl-Tirmidhi HadithHadith 5605 Narrated byAbuHurayrah
Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "Two men of those who enter Hell will shout loudly, and the Lord Most High will say, 'Bring them out.' He will ask them why they shouted so loudly and they will reply, 'We did that in order that Thou mightest have mercy on us.' He will say, 'My mercy to you is that you should go and throw yourselves where you were in Hell.' One of them will do so and Allah will make it coolness and peace for him, but the other will stand and not do so. The Lord Most High will ask him, 'What has prevented you from throwing yourself in as your companion did?" and he will reply, 'My Lord, I hope that Thou wilt not send me back into it after taking me out of it.' The Lord most high will then say to him, 'You will have your hope realised,' and they will both be brought into Paradise by Allah's mercy."
Tirmidhi transmitted it.





Surah Isra 17 verse 80 Say: "O my Lord! let my entry be by the Gate of Truth and Honor and likewise my exit by the Gate of Truth and Honor; and grant me from Thy Presence an authority to aid (me)."

Ameen,Thumameen.

In support of Hijab

Letter from Prison:
17 year old Muslimah facing death for Hijab

Sister Huda Kaya and her three daughters were arrested with fifty others protesting the ban on hijab (islamic headscarf) in Ynonu University, Turkey. The prosecutor is demanding the death penalty for them. The trial adjourned on 22 June 1999.


We have a new letter from Sister Nurcihan Saatcioglu, daughter of Huda Kaya, now aged 17 currently on trial facing the death penalty. It was sent from her prison in Malatya.
The english translation isn't brilliant but still understandable:


THE LETTER OF NURCIHAN SAATCIOGLU
08-07-1999

THURSDAY

TO ISLAMIC HUMAN RIGHTS COMISSION

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Elhamdulillah and salam to His Honourable Prophet Muhammed, our lovely leader, our lovely guide. Salam to Honourable Prophet Muhammed (s)'s followers, the momineen resisting against oppression and the mmomineen whose hearts are beating with us, sharing our pains.

My lovely sisters and brothers,

It doesn't matter how far away you are as we feel our hearts beating as one and as we feel you are our brothers and sisters. How happy we are, that we have a Holy Dava'ah. It is so holy that we can resist against all the forces of infidels and munafiqeen. Elhamdulillah. Elhamdulillah for thousands of times.

After the arrest of my mother, my sister Intisar, me and my sister Nurulhak on 21 May 1999, as I was going out of the classroom a final look to all my class mates was glanced by me. At that time all my classmates and the teacher in that class could do nothing for me. They were wondering what I had lived through, the first time I was arrested. And now I have one more experience to tell them. For the last time I was going to the classroom to take my bag. I saw that my friends from other classes were also very much surprised. Some of them were trying not to leave me. And the others and my teacher were trying to share my emotions while I was trying to calm them.

For the last term of our school life we are going to be away from our class and the teachers and our classmates. But we feel and know that it was worth it, and we are ready for it.

And we all know that one day we are going to face that four walls, the jails....

We are not going to graduate. All we want is to get Allah's pleasure. So we say Elhamdulillah that we are here, because we know that the only thing that worth is to get His pleasure. So it doesn't really matter whether we graduate from school, because for us it is important to take our graduation licences through Allah's pleasure. It is important for us to see the Allah's sign in our graduation licences . It is very important for us that our graduation licences be prepared for that Big Day on Allah's side. Allah is enough for us as a best friend...

Below is the "OATH of FREEDOM" that I read out in the headscarf demonstrations on 30 04 1999 Friday in front of the Governor's Building.

OATH OF FREEDOM

We were born freely

We will live freely and when death comes to us

We will die freely

Because we have written "Jihad" on our foreheads

We put the struggle in the beginning of our prayers,
in every morning.

"For a free country"

"For a free school"

"For our honour"

"For our identity"

Giving no concession

We'll resist,

RESIST !!!

We'll WIN !!!

We have SWORN !!!

Be our witness, Allah !!!

Be our witness, Allah !!!

Be our witness, Allah !!!

If one day I get the death penalty, I am going to repeat the same oath. I am going to read the "Oath of Freedom" again.

"And whoever takes Allah and His apostle and those who believe for a guardian, then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant."

(Maidah-56/ Holy Qur'an).

My Lord be our friend and assistance.

WITH SALAM AND PRAYERS

Nurcihan Saatcioglu

E-Type Prison

Malatya