Stark Warning For Women Who Wear Perfume
There are many ahaadeeth which forbid women to wear perfume when they go out of their houses. We will quote here some of those which have saheeh isnaads:
Abu Musa al-Ash’ari said: RasulAllah (saw) said: “Any woman who puts on perfume then passes by people so that they can smell her fragrance, is an adulteress.”
Zaynab al-Thaqafiyyah reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “If any one of you (women) goes out to the mosque, let her not touch any perfume.”
Abu Hurayrah said: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Any woman who has scented herself with bakhoor (incense), let her not attend ‘Ishaa’ prayers with us.”
Moosa ibn Yassaar said that a woman passed by Abu Hurayrah and her scent was overpowering. He said, “O female slave of al-Jabbaar, are you going to the mosque?” She said, “Yes,” He said, “And have you put on perfume because of that?” She said, “Yes.” He said, “Go back and wash yourself, for I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say: ‘If a woman comes out to the mosque and her fragrance is overpowering, Allah will not accept any prayer from her until she goes home and washes herself.’”
The reason for this prohibition is quite clear, which is that women’s fragrance may cause undue provocation of desires. The scholars also included other things under this heading of things to be avoided by women who want to go to the mosque, such as beautiful clothes, jewellery that can be seen, excessive adornments and mingling with men. See Fath al-Baari, 2/279.
This indicates that it is forbidden for a woman who wants to go to the mosque to wear perfume, because this causes provocation of men’s desires. This was reported by al-Manaawi in Fayd al-Qadeer, in the commentary on the first hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah quoted above.
These ahaadeeth are general in implication. Just as the prohibition covers perfume applied to the body, it also covers perfume applied to the clothes, especially in the third hadeeth, where bakhoor (incense) is mentioned, because incense is used specifically to perfume the clothes.
Using perfume for the husband is mustahabb and recommended, because it is part of treating him kindly, and it helps to increase love between the spouses, when each of them pays attention to what the other likes.
Al-Mannaawi said in Fayd al-Qadeer (3/190): As for putting on perfume and adorning herself for her husband, it is required and is something that is liked. One of the wise men said: For a woman to adorn herself and put on perfume for her husband is one of the strongest causes of love and affection between them, and wards off dislike and disdain, because the eye is the pioneer of the heart; if the eye looks at something attractive, the message will reach his heart and love will be created, but if it looks at something ugly or that it does not like of outfits or garments, that that message will reach the heart and dislike and disdain will be created. Hence the advice that Arab women gave to one another was: Beware of letting your husband see anything that does not please him or letting him smell anything from you that he finds off-putting.
Putting on perfume and going out with the aim of letting non-mahram men smell it. This is haraam, and is a major sin.
al-Mannaawi said in Fayd al-Qadeer (1/355): “She is an adulteress” means: because of that she is exposed to zina, and implementing the means that lead to it and calling those who seek it. Hence she is called an adulteress in a metaphorical sense, because desire may prevail and real zina may take place. Her passing by men is likened to her sitting in their path so that they pass by her.
If she puts on perfume and goes out, and thinks it most likely that she will pass by a group in which there will be men who will smell her perfume and fragrance, this is also haraam, even if she does not intend to tempt men and that is not her aim, because this action is a fitnah (temptation) in and of itself. There is also an indication in sharee’ah that it is haraam and not allowed.
Allah says: “And tell 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, headcover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband’s fathers, or their sons, or their husband’s sons, or their brothers or their brother’s sons, or their sister’s sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islâm), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of feminine sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allaah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful” [al-Noor 24:31]
So women are forbidden to show their adornments to non-mahram men, and perfume is undoubtedly one of the woman’s adornments, so it is included in this prohibition.
If the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade women to go out to the mosque wearing perfume, because men will usually smell some of the fragrance because of close proximity and there being no barrier between men and woman, then it is more likely that women are not allowed to go out to the marketplace and gatherings wearing perfume, although it is not regarded as a major sin, rather it is something that is clearly haraam.
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said in al-Zawaajir ‘an Iqtiraab al-Kabaa’ir (2/71-72):
The ahaadeeth which count it as a major sin should be interpreted as meaning that this applies if the fitnah is certainly there; when there is merely the fear of fitnah, then it is makrooh, or when she thinks it will cause fitnah then it is haraam but is not a major sin, as is obvious.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
A thoughtful conversation about Hijab (Veil) of women
A thoughtful conversation about Hijab (Veil) of women
A thoughtful conversation to reflect
A Mufti sat next to a Reverend on a flight.
The Rev asked the Mufti: What is your occupation?
Mufti: I'm into big business
Rev: But what business exactly?
Mufti: I deal with God
Rev: Ah, so you're a Muslim religious leader. I have one problem with you Muslims: you oppress your women.
Mufti: How do we oppress women?
Rev: You make your women cover up completely and you keep them in the homes.
Mufti: Ah. I have a problem with you people: you oppress MONEY
Rev: What? How can one oppress money?
Mufti: You keep your money hidden away, in wallets, banks and safes. You keep it covered up. Why don't you display it in public if it's a beautiful thing
Rev: It will get stolen, obviously.
Mufti: You keep your money hidden because it is so valuable. We value the true worth of women far, far more. Therefore, these precious jewels are not on display to one and all. They are kept in honour and dignity.
A thoughtful conversation to reflect
A Mufti sat next to a Reverend on a flight.
The Rev asked the Mufti: What is your occupation?
Mufti: I'm into big business
Rev: But what business exactly?
Mufti: I deal with God
Rev: Ah, so you're a Muslim religious leader. I have one problem with you Muslims: you oppress your women.
Mufti: How do we oppress women?
Rev: You make your women cover up completely and you keep them in the homes.
Mufti: Ah. I have a problem with you people: you oppress MONEY
Rev: What? How can one oppress money?
Mufti: You keep your money hidden away, in wallets, banks and safes. You keep it covered up. Why don't you display it in public if it's a beautiful thing
Rev: It will get stolen, obviously.
Mufti: You keep your money hidden because it is so valuable. We value the true worth of women far, far more. Therefore, these precious jewels are not on display to one and all. They are kept in honour and dignity.
Does my father have the right to take whatever he wants of my wealth?
Does my father have the right to take whatever he wants of my wealth?
Question:
I have always heard that music, singing and dancing are haram in My father keeps quoting a hadith that says all that a son possesses belongs to his father. Is this correct? If so, does this mean that a father can take part of or all of the son's possession against his son's will? I am aware that it is the duty of the son / daughter to look after the parents, be kind to them and ensure that they are fed, clothed and have somewhere to live. Can a father really take his son's possessions (both alive, both not in dire need) again his son's wishes?
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
1. The hadeeth is:
It was narrated from Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah that a man said: “O Messenger of Allaah, I have wealth and children, but my father wants to take all my wealth.” He said, “You and your wealth are for your father.” (Narrated by Ibn Maajah, 2291; Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh, 2/142 from the hadeeth of Jaabir, and 2922; Ahmad, 6902 from the hadeeth of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr).
And Ahmad narrated from ‘Amr ibn Shu’ayb from his father from his grandfather, who said: A Bedouin came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: “My father wants to take all my wealth.” He said, “You and your wealth are for your father. The best that you can eat is what you have earned, and your children’s wealth is part of what you have earned, so eat it and enjoy it.”
This report has other isnaads and corroborating reports which make it saheeh. (See Fath al-Baari, 5/211; Nasb al-Raayah,3/ 337)
2. The laam in the hadeeth (li in li abeeka – for your father) does not mean possession, rather it means permission.
Ibn al-Qayyim said: The laam in the hadeeth does not mean possession at all… If we say that it means permission, then the hadeeth makes sense, otherwise it does not have any significance. (I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een, 1/116)
3. One of the things which indicate that it does not mean possession is the fact that the son’s children, wife and mother can inherit from him. If his wealth were the property of his father, no one would be able to take his property except the father.
Al-Shaafa'i said: Because it was not proven. When Allaah decreed that a father could inherit from his son, He made him (the father) like other heirs. He may even have a smaller share than many other heirs, which proves that the son is the owner of his own wealth, not the father. (al-Risaalah, p. 468)
4. This permission is not absolute. It is subject to four conditions.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah preserve him) said: This hadeeth is not da’eef (weak) because it has corroborating reports. What this means is that if he (the son) has wealth, the father has the right to enjoy that wealth and to take whatever he wants from it, but this is subject to certain conditions:
The first condition: that by taking it he does not cause harm to his son. If it does cause harm – such as taking his cover with which he protects himself from the cold, or he takes his food with which he wards off hunger –it is not permissible for the father to do this.
The second condition: it should not be something that the son needs. If the son has a concubine whom he sleeps with, it is not permissible for the father to take her, because his son needs her. Similarly, if the son has a car which he needs for getting about, and he does not have enough cash to buy a replacement, then the father does not have the right to take it under any circumstances.
The third condition: he should not take the wealth from one of his sons in order to give it to another, because this creates enmity between the sons and because it means preferring one of the children over another, if the second son is not in need. If he is in need, then the father’s giving something to the one who is in need and not to the ones who are not in need, does not mean that he is preferring one child over another; on the contrary, it is obligatory for him to do this.
Whatever the case, the hadeeth is something which the scholars refer to and use as evidence. But there are conditions attached, as we have mentioned. The father does not have the right to take one son’s wealth and give it to another son.
And Allaah knows best.
(Fataawa Islamiyyah,4/ 108, 109)
There is also a fourth condition, which is that the father should be in need of the wealth that he is taking from his son. This condition is clearly stated in some ahaadeeth.
It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Your children are a gift from Allaah to you: ‘He bestows female (offspring) upon whom He wills, and bestows male (offspring) upon whom He wills’ [al-Shoora 42:49 – interpretation of the meaning]. So they and their wealth are for you, if you have need of it.” (narrated by al-Haakim, 2/284; al-Bayhaqi, 7/480)
The hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah, 2564, where he says:
This hadeeth contains an important fiqhi point which is that it explains that the famous hadeeth, “You and your wealth are for your father” (al-Irwaa’ 838) does not give the father absolute permission to take whatever he wants from his son’s wealth. Far from it! But he may take whatever he is in need of.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
www.islamqa.com
Question:
I have always heard that music, singing and dancing are haram in My father keeps quoting a hadith that says all that a son possesses belongs to his father. Is this correct? If so, does this mean that a father can take part of or all of the son's possession against his son's will? I am aware that it is the duty of the son / daughter to look after the parents, be kind to them and ensure that they are fed, clothed and have somewhere to live. Can a father really take his son's possessions (both alive, both not in dire need) again his son's wishes?
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
1. The hadeeth is:
It was narrated from Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah that a man said: “O Messenger of Allaah, I have wealth and children, but my father wants to take all my wealth.” He said, “You and your wealth are for your father.” (Narrated by Ibn Maajah, 2291; Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh, 2/142 from the hadeeth of Jaabir, and 2922; Ahmad, 6902 from the hadeeth of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr).
And Ahmad narrated from ‘Amr ibn Shu’ayb from his father from his grandfather, who said: A Bedouin came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: “My father wants to take all my wealth.” He said, “You and your wealth are for your father. The best that you can eat is what you have earned, and your children’s wealth is part of what you have earned, so eat it and enjoy it.”
This report has other isnaads and corroborating reports which make it saheeh. (See Fath al-Baari, 5/211; Nasb al-Raayah,3/ 337)
2. The laam in the hadeeth (li in li abeeka – for your father) does not mean possession, rather it means permission.
Ibn al-Qayyim said: The laam in the hadeeth does not mean possession at all… If we say that it means permission, then the hadeeth makes sense, otherwise it does not have any significance. (I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een, 1/116)
3. One of the things which indicate that it does not mean possession is the fact that the son’s children, wife and mother can inherit from him. If his wealth were the property of his father, no one would be able to take his property except the father.
Al-Shaafa'i said: Because it was not proven. When Allaah decreed that a father could inherit from his son, He made him (the father) like other heirs. He may even have a smaller share than many other heirs, which proves that the son is the owner of his own wealth, not the father. (al-Risaalah, p. 468)
4. This permission is not absolute. It is subject to four conditions.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah preserve him) said: This hadeeth is not da’eef (weak) because it has corroborating reports. What this means is that if he (the son) has wealth, the father has the right to enjoy that wealth and to take whatever he wants from it, but this is subject to certain conditions:
The first condition: that by taking it he does not cause harm to his son. If it does cause harm – such as taking his cover with which he protects himself from the cold, or he takes his food with which he wards off hunger –it is not permissible for the father to do this.
The second condition: it should not be something that the son needs. If the son has a concubine whom he sleeps with, it is not permissible for the father to take her, because his son needs her. Similarly, if the son has a car which he needs for getting about, and he does not have enough cash to buy a replacement, then the father does not have the right to take it under any circumstances.
The third condition: he should not take the wealth from one of his sons in order to give it to another, because this creates enmity between the sons and because it means preferring one of the children over another, if the second son is not in need. If he is in need, then the father’s giving something to the one who is in need and not to the ones who are not in need, does not mean that he is preferring one child over another; on the contrary, it is obligatory for him to do this.
Whatever the case, the hadeeth is something which the scholars refer to and use as evidence. But there are conditions attached, as we have mentioned. The father does not have the right to take one son’s wealth and give it to another son.
And Allaah knows best.
(Fataawa Islamiyyah,4/ 108, 109)
There is also a fourth condition, which is that the father should be in need of the wealth that he is taking from his son. This condition is clearly stated in some ahaadeeth.
It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Your children are a gift from Allaah to you: ‘He bestows female (offspring) upon whom He wills, and bestows male (offspring) upon whom He wills’ [al-Shoora 42:49 – interpretation of the meaning]. So they and their wealth are for you, if you have need of it.” (narrated by al-Haakim, 2/284; al-Bayhaqi, 7/480)
The hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah, 2564, where he says:
This hadeeth contains an important fiqhi point which is that it explains that the famous hadeeth, “You and your wealth are for your father” (al-Irwaa’ 838) does not give the father absolute permission to take whatever he wants from his son’s wealth. Far from it! But he may take whatever he is in need of.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
www.islamqa.com
ruling: Women wearing pants under garment & Garments below ankles
Question # 60131: Ruling on women wearing pants under a short garment
Question:
Is it permissible to wear wide pants with a garment that covers the entire body and comes a handspan above the ankles, with no slits in the garment, and the garment is not see-through or tight?.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
The clothing in which a woman appears before non-mahram men must meet eight conditions:
1- It should cover the entire body, including the face and hands. The evidence for that has been discussed in the answer to question no. 11774.
2- It must be wide and loose, not showing the size of her limbs or the shape of her body.
3- It should not be thin, showing the colour of her skin.
4- It should not be an adornment in and of itself, such as clothing decorated with embroidery.
5- It should not be perfumed.
6- It should not resemble the clothing of men.
7- It should not resemble the dress of kaafir women.
8- It should not be a dress of fame and vanity.
See Adaab al-Zafaaf by Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allaah have mercy on him), p. 177; Hijaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah, p. 16-111; ‘Awdat al-Hijaab, 3/145-163.
Based on this, a woman should not appear in front of men wearing pants or trousers for two reasons:
1 – They show the shape of the woman’s legs
2 – Wearing them is an imitation of men
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: I think that the Muslims should not follow these fashions and kinds of clothes that come to us from here and there. Many of them are not in accordance with proper Islamic dress which involves covering the woman completely, like the short or very tight or thin clothes. That includes pants, because they show the size of a woman’s legs, as well as her stomach, waist, breasts, etc. Wearing it comes under the description given in the saheeh hadeeth: “there are two types of the people of Hell whom I have not seen: people with whips like the tails of cattle, with which they strike the people, and women who are clothed yet naked, walking with an enticing gait, with something on their heads that looks like the humps of camels, leaning to one side. They will never enter Paradise or even smell its fragrance, although its fragrance can be detected from such and such a distance.” This hadeeth was narrated by Muslim, 2128.
He also said: What I think is that it is haraam for women to wear pants, because they are an imitation of men. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed women who imitate men. It also takes modesty away from the woman, because it opens the door to wearing the clothes of the people of Hell, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There are two types of the people of Hell whom I have not seen…” and he described one of them as being, “women who are clothed yet naked, walking with an enticing gait, with something on their heads that looks like the humps of camels, leaning to one side. They will never enter Paradise or even smell its fragrance, although its fragrance can be detected from such and such a distance.”
End quote from Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 12, question no. 192, 104.
It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (17/102): It is not permissible for (a woman) to wear pants, because that involves women resembling men.
See also question no. 10436. [http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ln=eng&QR=10436]
With regard to wearing pants under a jilbaab, there is nothing wrong with that, rather it is more covering and more protective, if the jilbaab is wide and concealing and does not have any splits that show what is underneath it.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: If a woman wears pants and puts over them a wide garment then she will not be resembling men, so long as she wears them underneath her garments.
End quote from Fataawa al-Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, p. 573.
The basic principle is that the woman’s jilbab should be wide and cover the tops of her feet, because of the report narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1731), al-Nasaa’i (5336), Abu Dawood (4117) and Ibn Maajah (3580) from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever lets his garment drag out of pride, Allaah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.” Umm Salamah said: “What should women do with their hems?” He said: “Let them down by a handspan.” She said: “But then their feet will be uncovered.” He said: “Then a cubit, but no more than that.” This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan al-Tirmidhi.
Al-Baaji said: The words of Umm Salamah (may Allaah be pleased with her) regarding lengthening the hem by a handspan – “But then their feet will be uncovered” – show that this length was not sufficient to cover them, because the movement of her feet when walking quickly, combined with the shortness of the hem, would lead to them being uncovered. When she pointed that out to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he said: “Then a cubit, but no more than that.” End quote from al-Muntaqa.
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) was asked: Is it mustahabb or waajib for a woman to make her dress long? Is wearing socks on the feet sufficient if the dress is shortened only so much that nothing of the calf shows? How should a woman lengthen her dress by a cubit – below the ankle or below the knee?
He replied: What is required of the Muslim woman is to cover all her body in front of men, hence she is allowed to lengthen her garment by a cubit so as to cover her feet, whereas men are forbidden to let their garments hang below their ankles. This indicates that women are required to cover all of their bodies. If a woman wears socks that is doing something extra to be more on the safe side with regard to covering, which is something good. She should also make her garment long, as described in the hadeeth. And Allaah is the Source of strength.
End quote. Al-Muntaqa min Fataawa al-Shaykh al-Fawzaan, 5/334.
The point is that a woman’s jilbab should be wide and come down to her ankles or more. If it is short and comes a handspan above the ankles, that is not permissible even if she covers her calves and feet with pants or socks, because that is imitating men who are enjoined to make their garments short, above the ankles. It also shows the shape and size of her feet.
And Allaah knows best.
http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=60131&ln=eng
Question:
Is it permissible to wear wide pants with a garment that covers the entire body and comes a handspan above the ankles, with no slits in the garment, and the garment is not see-through or tight?.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
The clothing in which a woman appears before non-mahram men must meet eight conditions:
1- It should cover the entire body, including the face and hands. The evidence for that has been discussed in the answer to question no. 11774.
2- It must be wide and loose, not showing the size of her limbs or the shape of her body.
3- It should not be thin, showing the colour of her skin.
4- It should not be an adornment in and of itself, such as clothing decorated with embroidery.
5- It should not be perfumed.
6- It should not resemble the clothing of men.
7- It should not resemble the dress of kaafir women.
8- It should not be a dress of fame and vanity.
See Adaab al-Zafaaf by Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allaah have mercy on him), p. 177; Hijaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah, p. 16-111; ‘Awdat al-Hijaab, 3/145-163.
Based on this, a woman should not appear in front of men wearing pants or trousers for two reasons:
1 – They show the shape of the woman’s legs
2 – Wearing them is an imitation of men
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: I think that the Muslims should not follow these fashions and kinds of clothes that come to us from here and there. Many of them are not in accordance with proper Islamic dress which involves covering the woman completely, like the short or very tight or thin clothes. That includes pants, because they show the size of a woman’s legs, as well as her stomach, waist, breasts, etc. Wearing it comes under the description given in the saheeh hadeeth: “there are two types of the people of Hell whom I have not seen: people with whips like the tails of cattle, with which they strike the people, and women who are clothed yet naked, walking with an enticing gait, with something on their heads that looks like the humps of camels, leaning to one side. They will never enter Paradise or even smell its fragrance, although its fragrance can be detected from such and such a distance.” This hadeeth was narrated by Muslim, 2128.
He also said: What I think is that it is haraam for women to wear pants, because they are an imitation of men. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed women who imitate men. It also takes modesty away from the woman, because it opens the door to wearing the clothes of the people of Hell, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There are two types of the people of Hell whom I have not seen…” and he described one of them as being, “women who are clothed yet naked, walking with an enticing gait, with something on their heads that looks like the humps of camels, leaning to one side. They will never enter Paradise or even smell its fragrance, although its fragrance can be detected from such and such a distance.”
End quote from Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 12, question no. 192, 104.
It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (17/102): It is not permissible for (a woman) to wear pants, because that involves women resembling men.
See also question no. 10436. [http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ln=eng&QR=10436]
With regard to wearing pants under a jilbaab, there is nothing wrong with that, rather it is more covering and more protective, if the jilbaab is wide and concealing and does not have any splits that show what is underneath it.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: If a woman wears pants and puts over them a wide garment then she will not be resembling men, so long as she wears them underneath her garments.
End quote from Fataawa al-Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, p. 573.
The basic principle is that the woman’s jilbab should be wide and cover the tops of her feet, because of the report narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1731), al-Nasaa’i (5336), Abu Dawood (4117) and Ibn Maajah (3580) from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever lets his garment drag out of pride, Allaah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.” Umm Salamah said: “What should women do with their hems?” He said: “Let them down by a handspan.” She said: “But then their feet will be uncovered.” He said: “Then a cubit, but no more than that.” This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan al-Tirmidhi.
Al-Baaji said: The words of Umm Salamah (may Allaah be pleased with her) regarding lengthening the hem by a handspan – “But then their feet will be uncovered” – show that this length was not sufficient to cover them, because the movement of her feet when walking quickly, combined with the shortness of the hem, would lead to them being uncovered. When she pointed that out to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he said: “Then a cubit, but no more than that.” End quote from al-Muntaqa.
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) was asked: Is it mustahabb or waajib for a woman to make her dress long? Is wearing socks on the feet sufficient if the dress is shortened only so much that nothing of the calf shows? How should a woman lengthen her dress by a cubit – below the ankle or below the knee?
He replied: What is required of the Muslim woman is to cover all her body in front of men, hence she is allowed to lengthen her garment by a cubit so as to cover her feet, whereas men are forbidden to let their garments hang below their ankles. This indicates that women are required to cover all of their bodies. If a woman wears socks that is doing something extra to be more on the safe side with regard to covering, which is something good. She should also make her garment long, as described in the hadeeth. And Allaah is the Source of strength.
End quote. Al-Muntaqa min Fataawa al-Shaykh al-Fawzaan, 5/334.
The point is that a woman’s jilbab should be wide and come down to her ankles or more. If it is short and comes a handspan above the ankles, that is not permissible even if she covers her calves and feet with pants or socks, because that is imitating men who are enjoined to make their garments short, above the ankles. It also shows the shape and size of her feet.
And Allaah knows best.
http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=60131&ln=eng
Forget fashion, this is freedom
Forget fashion, this is freedom
(Filed: 31/12/2003)
The Muslim veil has become a hot political issue in France - but Stella White cannot see what the fuss is about. A Catholic from Kent, she explains the joys of the complete cover-up
To liberated Westerners, the hijab, or veil, is a stain on womankind. It symbolises the crushing of the female spirit and is the mark of slavery, transforming a woman into a passive lump who is only allowed out of the house to buy her husband's dinner.
When faced with this piece-of-cloth- on-legs, English women will often meet the eyes peeking out of the hijab with an expression of pity and sadness. For them, the veil represents a living death. This might also be the feeling of the French authorities, who have decided to ban the hijab in schools, believing that no young girl should have to carry the burden of repression on her tender head.
Yet for many, including myself, the veil is not an instrument of coercion, but a means of liberation. Personally, I have never felt so free as I do when I am wearing it.
Before you presume that I am regurgitating propaganda from a culture that has brainwashed me, I should point out that I am a Catholic, not a Muslim. I am not from the mysterious East, but am a 32-year-old woman from boring Kent. Nor am I a prude: my life has included spells as an exotic dancer, kissogram and glamour model. Three of my best friends are strippers. I have had relationships with Muslim men, but none of them ever demanded I wear the hijab; in fact, they found my behaviour slightly embarrassing.
There is nobody in my past that has coerced me to wear a veil. I do so simply because I love it.
I relish the privacy; the barrier that the hijab creates between myself and the harsh, frenetic world, especially in London. I find a great peace behind the veil: I don't feel invaded by nosy passers-by; the traffic, noise and crowds seem less overwhelming. I can retreat into my own safe world even as I walk and, on a practical level, I feel completely secure from unwanted advances.
The hijab is also a financial security system. Like most pedestrians in London, I can't afford to give money to every homeless person I see, but feel stressed and guilty when I walk past them. In my hijab, my conscience can hide. I also feel fairly safe from muggers. Thieves glance at me and probably think, "illegal immigrant; not worth the effort", presuming that my big carrier bags contain only weird, knobbly vegetables for my 16 children.
In my hijab, shopping is also cheaper. A small minority of Muslim traders operate a two-tier pricing system with the "one of us" price being considerably lower than the price for Westerners. If I want a bargain, I make sure I am "hijabbed-up".
The most amazing effect of wearing the veil is that you automatically seem to become a member of the Muslim community and are accorded all of the privileges and dignity of a Muslim woman. When I walk into a Muslim shop, a man will say to me, gently, "Salaam aleikum [peace be upon you]. How can I help you, madam?" On the bus, Muslim men from Africa, the Middle East or the Far East will move aside for me and say, "After you, sister."
The offices, bars and clubs of London are full of English girls in short skirts and strappy sandals, many of them looking for love. Women who wear the hijab, often despised by the West, actually feel sorry for these Western women who have to harm themselves with crippling high heels, skin-choking make-up and obsessive dieting in order to find a man.
My Iranian friend Mona is a successful businesswoman who goes out every day looking impeccable, with painted nails, stilettos, sharp suits and perfect make-up. "It was just so much easier when I was in Iran," she says. "You'd get up at nine, throw on your big black hooded dress and jump in the car. Now, I have to spend two or three hours getting done up every morning."
Too often, the hijab is dismissed as the preserve of Muslim fundamentalists. But in the Christian tradition, St Paul ordered women to cover their heads and, until the Sixties, no woman would be seen in an English church without a hat and gloves.
Many English women wore hats out in the street or headscarves tied under their chin. Hindu and Sikh women are still expected to cover their heads loosely for their honour, or izzat, and Orthodox Jewish women have traditionally worn wigs over their real hair to conceal it from men who are not their husbands. Yet, among all these cultural groups, only Muslim women seem to have been described as weak or oppressed on account of their headgear.
Two of the most unlikely bedfellows are the woman who wears a hijab and the militant feminist. When women in the early Seventies began cropping their hair short, and wearing dungarees and comfortable shoes, they were rejecting the idea of suffering for fashion and were refusing to take part in the desperate ritual to attract spoilt, fussy males.
Similarly, a woman in a hijab can retain her identity without being a slave to finicky Western notions of beauty.
A particularly sad article appeared in a popular women's magazine last week, entitled: "How to hate your body less." I showed it to my Arab friend Malika, who shook her head and said: "In my culture, men are so grateful when they marry a woman that they see her as a gorgeous princess, whatever shape or size she is."
Within the hijab, Muslim women know their power and their value. One Muslim man told me: "My wife is like a beautiful diamond. Would you leave a precious diamond to get scratched or stolen in the street? No, you would wrap it in velvet. And that is how the hijab protects my wife, who is more precious to me than any jewel."
Of course, if anybody tried to remove my veil or force me to wear it, I would react violently. I am privileged to live in a country in which I can wear whatever I want to. Not all women are so lucky. Personally, I have found in the hijab a kind of guardian angel. My mother, on the other hand, claims that I wear it because I can't be bothered to brush my hair.
Comments:
Here is a non-Muslim woman who has realized and understood the value and benefits of the Islamic hijab, and she is using it for herself despite being a non-Muslim.
(Filed: 31/12/2003)
The Muslim veil has become a hot political issue in France - but Stella White cannot see what the fuss is about. A Catholic from Kent, she explains the joys of the complete cover-up
To liberated Westerners, the hijab, or veil, is a stain on womankind. It symbolises the crushing of the female spirit and is the mark of slavery, transforming a woman into a passive lump who is only allowed out of the house to buy her husband's dinner.
When faced with this piece-of-cloth- on-legs, English women will often meet the eyes peeking out of the hijab with an expression of pity and sadness. For them, the veil represents a living death. This might also be the feeling of the French authorities, who have decided to ban the hijab in schools, believing that no young girl should have to carry the burden of repression on her tender head.
Yet for many, including myself, the veil is not an instrument of coercion, but a means of liberation. Personally, I have never felt so free as I do when I am wearing it.
Before you presume that I am regurgitating propaganda from a culture that has brainwashed me, I should point out that I am a Catholic, not a Muslim. I am not from the mysterious East, but am a 32-year-old woman from boring Kent. Nor am I a prude: my life has included spells as an exotic dancer, kissogram and glamour model. Three of my best friends are strippers. I have had relationships with Muslim men, but none of them ever demanded I wear the hijab; in fact, they found my behaviour slightly embarrassing.
There is nobody in my past that has coerced me to wear a veil. I do so simply because I love it.
I relish the privacy; the barrier that the hijab creates between myself and the harsh, frenetic world, especially in London. I find a great peace behind the veil: I don't feel invaded by nosy passers-by; the traffic, noise and crowds seem less overwhelming. I can retreat into my own safe world even as I walk and, on a practical level, I feel completely secure from unwanted advances.
The hijab is also a financial security system. Like most pedestrians in London, I can't afford to give money to every homeless person I see, but feel stressed and guilty when I walk past them. In my hijab, my conscience can hide. I also feel fairly safe from muggers. Thieves glance at me and probably think, "illegal immigrant; not worth the effort", presuming that my big carrier bags contain only weird, knobbly vegetables for my 16 children.
In my hijab, shopping is also cheaper. A small minority of Muslim traders operate a two-tier pricing system with the "one of us" price being considerably lower than the price for Westerners. If I want a bargain, I make sure I am "hijabbed-up".
The most amazing effect of wearing the veil is that you automatically seem to become a member of the Muslim community and are accorded all of the privileges and dignity of a Muslim woman. When I walk into a Muslim shop, a man will say to me, gently, "Salaam aleikum [peace be upon you]. How can I help you, madam?" On the bus, Muslim men from Africa, the Middle East or the Far East will move aside for me and say, "After you, sister."
The offices, bars and clubs of London are full of English girls in short skirts and strappy sandals, many of them looking for love. Women who wear the hijab, often despised by the West, actually feel sorry for these Western women who have to harm themselves with crippling high heels, skin-choking make-up and obsessive dieting in order to find a man.
My Iranian friend Mona is a successful businesswoman who goes out every day looking impeccable, with painted nails, stilettos, sharp suits and perfect make-up. "It was just so much easier when I was in Iran," she says. "You'd get up at nine, throw on your big black hooded dress and jump in the car. Now, I have to spend two or three hours getting done up every morning."
Too often, the hijab is dismissed as the preserve of Muslim fundamentalists. But in the Christian tradition, St Paul ordered women to cover their heads and, until the Sixties, no woman would be seen in an English church without a hat and gloves.
Many English women wore hats out in the street or headscarves tied under their chin. Hindu and Sikh women are still expected to cover their heads loosely for their honour, or izzat, and Orthodox Jewish women have traditionally worn wigs over their real hair to conceal it from men who are not their husbands. Yet, among all these cultural groups, only Muslim women seem to have been described as weak or oppressed on account of their headgear.
Two of the most unlikely bedfellows are the woman who wears a hijab and the militant feminist. When women in the early Seventies began cropping their hair short, and wearing dungarees and comfortable shoes, they were rejecting the idea of suffering for fashion and were refusing to take part in the desperate ritual to attract spoilt, fussy males.
Similarly, a woman in a hijab can retain her identity without being a slave to finicky Western notions of beauty.
A particularly sad article appeared in a popular women's magazine last week, entitled: "How to hate your body less." I showed it to my Arab friend Malika, who shook her head and said: "In my culture, men are so grateful when they marry a woman that they see her as a gorgeous princess, whatever shape or size she is."
Within the hijab, Muslim women know their power and their value. One Muslim man told me: "My wife is like a beautiful diamond. Would you leave a precious diamond to get scratched or stolen in the street? No, you would wrap it in velvet. And that is how the hijab protects my wife, who is more precious to me than any jewel."
Of course, if anybody tried to remove my veil or force me to wear it, I would react violently. I am privileged to live in a country in which I can wear whatever I want to. Not all women are so lucky. Personally, I have found in the hijab a kind of guardian angel. My mother, on the other hand, claims that I wear it because I can't be bothered to brush my hair.
Comments:
Here is a non-Muslim woman who has realized and understood the value and benefits of the Islamic hijab, and she is using it for herself despite being a non-Muslim.
Do Headscarfs = Hijab?
Do Headscarfs = Hijab?
By Humza Mullick
HEADSCARFS and head coverings are some of the misrepresented words that have been connected with the Hijab. Many haven't really understood the meaning or implementation of Hijab. Most misconceptions are due to: lack of knowledge or simply not wanting to obey Allah.
Linguistically, Hijab means a screen or covering (Hans Weir Arabic to English dictionary). Screen, when used as a noun means an upright partition used to divide a room, give shelter, or provide concealment and, when used as a verb it means conceal, protect, or shelter with a screen. Conceal means to prevent from being seen or known. (Oxford dictionary, online version).
In Islamic Shariah terms, Hijab means covering or veil. Allah said in the Qur'an:
"Nay! Surely, they (evil-doers) will be veiled from seeing their Lord that Day." (Qur'an, 83:15)
The word used here is 'Mahjooboon' , which is derived from 'Hajaba' which means to prevent from being seen. Allah also says in the Qur'an:
"And when you (Muhammad, peace be upon him) recite the Qur'an, We put between you and those who believe not in the Hereafter, an invisible veil (or screen their hearts, so they hear or understand it not)." (Qur'an, 17:45)
These verses show that both linguistically and Islamically, Hijab refers to something that covers and veils. During the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), when Allah commanded that Muslim women must cover in front of non-Mahram men, they tore their 'Murats' – woolen dress or a waist-binding cloth – and covered themselves.
In another verse, Allah said:
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Qur'an, 33:59)
A major mistake many make is restricting the term 'Hijab' to mean a flimsy scarf that covers the hair only; in other words, a 'headscarf.' Some Muslim women in the West wear tight jeans, t-shirts and a headscarf while going out and think they are adhering to the Islamic dress code. This is incorrect. Some of the conditions laid out in the Qur'an and Sunnah for Hijab are as follows:
• Covers the whole body
Some scholars say it includes covering of face and hands, while others say it is recommended and not obligatory.
• Not a display that attracts attention
• Not perfumed
• Not transparent
• Roomy, and not tight-fitting
• Doesn't resemble the dress of men or what is specific to non-Muslims.
Hijab is for all times and all places, not restricted for Muslim lands alone. Some wear Hijab in Muslim lands and switch to headscarfs in the West. We have to fear Allah everywhere we go and this dysfunctional practice is a direct result of our weakness in our understanding of Tawheed (monotheism) and a deficiency in our Aqeedah (belief). Hijab is a protection of Muslim women's honour and respect.
Islam is about submission to the Creator in all aspects of our lives. When we are instructed to do something by Allah, we should just "hear and obey."
More information on Proper Hijab
http://members.tripod.com/~ibnfarooq/niqaab.htm
By Humza Mullick
HEADSCARFS and head coverings are some of the misrepresented words that have been connected with the Hijab. Many haven't really understood the meaning or implementation of Hijab. Most misconceptions are due to: lack of knowledge or simply not wanting to obey Allah.
Linguistically, Hijab means a screen or covering (Hans Weir Arabic to English dictionary). Screen, when used as a noun means an upright partition used to divide a room, give shelter, or provide concealment and, when used as a verb it means conceal, protect, or shelter with a screen. Conceal means to prevent from being seen or known. (Oxford dictionary, online version).
In Islamic Shariah terms, Hijab means covering or veil. Allah said in the Qur'an:
"Nay! Surely, they (evil-doers) will be veiled from seeing their Lord that Day." (Qur'an, 83:15)
The word used here is 'Mahjooboon' , which is derived from 'Hajaba' which means to prevent from being seen. Allah also says in the Qur'an:
"And when you (Muhammad, peace be upon him) recite the Qur'an, We put between you and those who believe not in the Hereafter, an invisible veil (or screen their hearts, so they hear or understand it not)." (Qur'an, 17:45)
These verses show that both linguistically and Islamically, Hijab refers to something that covers and veils. During the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), when Allah commanded that Muslim women must cover in front of non-Mahram men, they tore their 'Murats' – woolen dress or a waist-binding cloth – and covered themselves.
In another verse, Allah said:
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Qur'an, 33:59)
A major mistake many make is restricting the term 'Hijab' to mean a flimsy scarf that covers the hair only; in other words, a 'headscarf.' Some Muslim women in the West wear tight jeans, t-shirts and a headscarf while going out and think they are adhering to the Islamic dress code. This is incorrect. Some of the conditions laid out in the Qur'an and Sunnah for Hijab are as follows:
• Covers the whole body
Some scholars say it includes covering of face and hands, while others say it is recommended and not obligatory.
• Not a display that attracts attention
• Not perfumed
• Not transparent
• Roomy, and not tight-fitting
• Doesn't resemble the dress of men or what is specific to non-Muslims.
Hijab is for all times and all places, not restricted for Muslim lands alone. Some wear Hijab in Muslim lands and switch to headscarfs in the West. We have to fear Allah everywhere we go and this dysfunctional practice is a direct result of our weakness in our understanding of Tawheed (monotheism) and a deficiency in our Aqeedah (belief). Hijab is a protection of Muslim women's honour and respect.
Islam is about submission to the Creator in all aspects of our lives. When we are instructed to do something by Allah, we should just "hear and obey."
More information on Proper Hijab
http://members.tripod.com/~ibnfarooq/niqaab.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
