🔆From the Textual Proof for the Obligation of the Niqab by Ibn ‘Uthaymeen🔆 ➖Ibn ‘Umar reported that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) said: “Whoever trails his garment out of pride, Allah will not look at him on the day of judgement.” So Umm Salamah (radiallaahu anha) asked: “Then what should the women do with the hems of their dresses?“ The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: “Let them extend their hems the length of a hand span.” She said: “But their feet would still be exposed.” So he replied: “Then let them extend it a forearm’s length and no more.” [Abu Dawud]➖ ✒️Ibn ‘Uthaymeen comments: “There is evidence in this hadeeth that a woman is obligated to cover her feet. This was a well known matter amongst the female companions. Without a doubt, the foot is less a place of fitnah than the face and hands. Thus, warning against something that is a lesser danger also consists of a warning against what is greater and superior than it, based on the wisdom of the Last Revelation. Would it obligate the covering of an area that is less a place of fitnah, and allow the exposure of that which is a greater area of fitnah? Indeed this is a clear contradiction that is not possible for the wisdom of Allah and His Legislation.” ✒️Taken From “The Four Essays on the Obligation of Veiling”, Ch. 2: “An Essay on Hijab” By Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, p.39 💫‘Aa’ishah (radiallaahu anha) said: “Male riders would pass by us while we (wives) were in the state of ihram with the messenger of Allah. When they would approach us, (each) one of us would let her jilbaab fall down from (the top of) her head over her face. And when they had passed on, we would uncover our faces.” [Ahmad, Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah]💫 ✒️Ibn ‘Uthaymeen comments: “In her statement: “When they (male riders) would approach us, (each) one of us would let her jilbaab fall down from (the top of) her head over her face” is a proof for the obligation of covering the face. This is because when one is in the state of ihram, it is obligatory to uncover the face. So if it were not for the strong restriction against exposing the face, it would have been obligatory for them (i.e. the Prophet’s wives) to remain uncovered, even in the presence of the male riders. (1) ❓❗️To clarify this point further: Uncovering the face in the state of ihram is obligatory on all women, according to the majority of scholars. And the obligatory act does not get overridden, except by something else that is obligatory (to a stronger degree). Therefore, if veiling the face in front of male strangers were not obligatory, it would not have been permitted to abandon the obligatory act of exposing the face in the state of ihram. ✒️Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: ‘This hadeeth is from that which shows us that the face veil (niqab) and the gloves were widely known to women who were not in ihram. This is evidence for the covering of their faces and hands.’” Note: What the shaykh means here is that those in ihram are obligated to uncover their faces, however ‘Aa’ishah would cover her face in the presence of male riders, so it is only obvious to assume that there is a stronger obligation overriding this obligation (of those in ihram uncovering their faces). So even though someone in ihram must uncover their face, the obligation of a woman covering her face is an even stronger obligation. ➖Taken from “Four Essays on the Obligation of Veiling” Ch. 2: An Essay on Hijab, Pp. 40-41➖
Posted on: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 19:46:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015