Why do women have to wear Burkas?

AbuBakr · 14-02-2009 04:55PM

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Muslims should remember that unbelievers should only be given the message of Islam and after that it is between them and Allah. We are not to continue to preach to them unless they come to us for more information. We do not have to, being secure in our faith have to prove anything. Let them go in their own direction.

+1

Looking at the forum charter, I see that the main purpose of the forum is for "open discussion of the religon for those who are following it or for those who may have honest questions about it". It is not our job to defend Islam from wild attacks. Of course, explaining why we believe and practise what we do helps us to reflect on Islam, which has always, since the days of the Prophet (may peace and the blessings of Allah be on him), valued knowledge, reason and wisdom.

balkanac · 21-03-2009 09:57AM

Ruling on covering the face, with detailed evidence

I would like to know those verses in quran which talk about the covering of face by women as i need to show it few persons who want to know whether covering of face by women is compulsory or optional.

Praise be to Allaah.
You should note that women’s observing hijab in front of non-mahram men and covering their faces is something that is obligatory as is indicated by the Book of your Lord and the Sunnah of your Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and by rational examination and analogy.
1 – Evidence from the Qur’aan
(i)
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“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 Islam), 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]
The evidence from this verse that hijab is obligatory for women is as follows:
(a) Allaah commands the believing women to guard their chastity, and the command to guard their chastity also a command to follow all the means of doing that. No rational person would doubt that one of the means of doing so is covering the face, because uncovering it causes people to look at it and enjoy its beauty, and thence to initiate contact. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The eyes commit zina and their zina is by looking…” then he said, “… and the private part confirms that or denies it.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6612; Muslim, 2657.
If covering the face is one of the means of guarding one’s chastity, then it is enjoined, because the means come under the same ruling as the ends.
(b) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “…and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) …”. The jayb (pl. juyoob) is the neck opening of a garment and the khimaar (veil) is that with which a woman covers her head. If a woman is commanded to draw her veil over the neck opening of her garment then she is commanded to cover her face, either because that is implied or by analogy. If it is obligatory to cover the throat and chest, then it is more appropriate to cover the face because it is the site of beauty and attraction.
(c) Allaah has forbidden showing all adornment except that which is apparent, which is that which one cannot help showing, such as the outside of one's garment. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “…except only that which is apparent …” and He did not say, except that which they show of it. Some of the salaf, such as Ibn Mas’ood, al-Hasan, Ibn Sireen and others interpreted the phrase “except only that which is apparent” as meaning the outer garment and clothes, and what shows from beneath the outer garment (i.e., the hem of one’s dress etc.). Then He again forbids showing one’s adornment except to those for whom He makes an exception. This indicates that the second adornment mentioned is something other than the first adornment. The first adornment is the external adornment which appears to everyone and cannot be hidden. The second adornment is the inward adornment (including the face). If it were permissible for this adornment to be seen by everyone, there would be no point to the general wording in the first instance and this exception made in the second.
(d) Allaah grants a concession allowing a woman to show her inward adornments to “old male servants who lack vigour”, i.e. servants who are men who have no desire, and to small children who have not reached the age of desire and have not seen the ‘awrahs of women. This indicates two things:
1 – That showing inward adornments to non-mahrams is not permissible except to these two types of people.
2 – That the reason for this ruling is the fear that men may be tempted by the woman and fall in love with her. Undoubtedly the face is the site of beauty and attraction, so concealing it is obligatory lest men who do feel desire be attracted and tempted by her.
(e) The words (interpretation of the meaning): “And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment” mean that a woman should not stamp her feet so as to make known hidden adornments such as anklets and the like. If a woman is forbidden to stamp her feet lest men be tempted by what they hear of the sound of her anklets etc., then what about uncovering the face?
Which is the greater source of temptation – a man hearing the anklets of a woman whom he does not know who she is or whether she is beautiful, or whether she is young or old, or ugly or pretty? Or his looking at a beautiful youthful face that attracts him and invites him to look at it?
Every man who has any desire for women will know which of the two temptations is greater and which deserves to be hidden and concealed.
(ii)
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And as for women past childbearing who do not expect wedlock, it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment. But to refrain (i.e. not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them. And Allaah is All‑Hearer, All‑Knower”
[al-Noor 24:60]
The evidence from this verse is that Allaah states that there is no sin on old women who have no hope of marriage because men have no desire for them, due to their old age (if they discard their outer clothing), subject to the condition that their intention in doing so is not to make a wanton display of themselves. The fact that this ruling applies only to old women indicates that the ruling is different for young women who still hope to get married. If the ruling on discarding the outer clothing applied to all, there would be no point in singling out old women here.
The phrase “in such a way as not to show their adornment” offers further proof that hijab is obligatory for young women who hope to marry, because usually when they uncover their faces the intention is to make a wanton display (tabarruj) and to show off their beauty and make men look at them and admire them etc. Those who do otherwise are rare, and the ruling does not apply to rare cases.
(iii)
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Ahzaab 33:59]
Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “Allaah commanded the believing women, if they go out of their houses for some need, to cover their faces from the top of their heads with their jilbaabs, and to leave one eye showing.”
The tafseer of the Sahaabah is evidence, indeed some of the scholars said that it comes under the same ruling as marfoo’ reports that go back to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The comment “and leave one eye showing” is a concession because of the need to see the way; if there is no need for that then the eye should not be uncovered.
The jilbaab is the upper garment that comes above the khimaar; it is like the abaya.
(iv) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“It is no sin on them (the Prophet’s wives, if they appear unveiled) before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brother’s sons, or the sons of their sisters, or their own (believing) women, or their (female) slaves. And (O ladies), fear (keep your duty to) Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Ever All‑Witness over everything”
[al-Ahzaab 33:55]
Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: When Allaah commanded the women to observe hijab in front of non-mahram men, he explained that they did not have to observe hijab in front of these relatives, as He explained that they are exempted in Soorat al-Noor where He said (interpretation of the meaning): “and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands…”
2 – Evidence from the Sunnah that it is obligatory to cover the face
(i)
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When any one of you proposes marriage to a woman, there is no sin on him if he looks at her, rather he should look at her for the purpose of proposing marriage even if she is unaware.” Narrated by Ahmad. The author of Majma’ al-Zawaa’id said: its men are the men of saheeh.
The evidence here is the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said there is no sin on the man who is proposing marriage, subject to the condition that his looking be for the purpose of proposing marriage. This indicates that the one who is not proposing marriage is sinning if he looks at a non-mahram woman in ordinary circumstances, as is the one who is proposing marriage if he looks for any purpose other than proposing marriage, such as for the purpose of enjoyment etc.
If it is said that the hadeeth does not clearly state what is being looked at, and it may mean looking at the chest etc, the response is that the man who is proposing marriage looks at the face because it is the focus for the one who is seeking beauty, without a doubt.
(ii)
When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded that women should be brought out to the Eid prayer place, they said, “O Messenger of Allaah, some of us do not have jilbaabs.” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Let her sister give her one of her jilbaabs to wear.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.
This hadeeth indicates that the usual practice among the women of the Sahaabah was that a woman would not go out without a jilbaab, and that if she did not have a jilbaab she would not go out. The command to wear a jilbaab indicates that it is essential to cover. And Allaah knows best.
(iii)
It was narrated in al-Saheehayn that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to pray Fajr and the believing women would attend the prayer with him, wrapped in their veils, then they would go back to their homes and no one would recognize them because of the darkness. She said: If the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw from the women what we have seen, he would have prevented them from coming to the mosques as the Children of Israel prevented their women.
A similar report was also narrated by ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him).
The evidence from this hadeeth covers two issues:
1 – Hijaab and covering were the practice of the women of the Sahaabah who were the best of generations and the most honourable before Allaah.
2 – ‘Aa’ishah the Mother of the Believers and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with them both), who were both known as scholars with deep insight, said that if the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had seen from women what they had seen, he would have prevented them from coming to the mosques. This was during the best generations, so what about nowadays?!
(iv)
It was narrated that Ibn ‘Umar 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 it hang down a handspan.” She said, “What if that shows her feet?” He said, “Let it hang down a cubit, but no more than that.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

This hadeeth indicates that it is obligatory for women to cover their feet, and that this was something that was well known among the women of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). The feet are undoubtedly a lesser source of temptation than the face and hands, so a warning concerning something that is less serious is a warning about something that is more serious and to which the ruling applies more. The wisdom of sharee’ah means that it would not enjoin covering something that is a lesser source of temptation and allow uncovering something that is a greater source of temptation. This is an impossible contradiction that cannot be attributed to the wisdom and laws of Allaah.

(v)
It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah said: The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in ihraam. When they came near us we would lower our jilbaabs from our heads over our faces, and when they had passed by we would uncover our faces. Narrated by Abu Dawood, 1562.
The words “When they came near us we would lower our jilbaabs from our heads over our faces” indicate that it is obligatory to cover the face, because what is prescribed in ihraam is to uncover it. If there was no strong reason to prevent uncovering it, it would be obligatory to leave it uncovered even when the riders were passing by. In other words, women are obliged to uncover their faces during ihraam according to the majority of scholars, and nothing can override something that is obligatory except something else that is also obligatory. If it were not obligatory to observe hijab and cover the face in the presence of non-mahram men, there would be no reason not to uncover it in ihraam. It was proven in al-Saheehayn and elsewhere that a woman in ihraam is forbidden to wear the niqaab (face veil) and gloves.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: This is one of the things which indicate that the niqaab and gloves were known among women who were not in ihraam, which implies that they covered their faces and hands.
These are nine points of evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
The tenth is:

Rational examination and analogy which form the basis of this perfect sharee’ah, which aims to help people achieve what is in their best interests and encourages the means that lead to that, and to denounce evil and block the means that lead to it.

If we think about unveiling and women showing their faces to non-mahram men, we will see that it involves many bad consequences. Even if we assume that there are some benefits in it, they are very few in comparison with its negative consequences. Those negative consequences include:
1 – Fitnah (temptation). By unveiling her face, a woman may be tempted to do things to make her face look more beautiful. This is one of the greatest causes of evil and corruption.
2 – Taking away haya’ (modesty, shyness) from women, which is part of faith and of a woman’s nature (fitrah). Women are examples of modesty, as it was said, “more shy than a virgin in her seclusion.” Taking away a woman’s modesty detracts from her faith and the natural inclination with which she was created.
3 – Men may be tempted by her, especially if she is beautiful and she flirts, laughs and jokes, as happens in the case of many of those who are unveiled. The Shaytaan flows through the son of Adam like blood.
4 – Mixing of men and women. If a woman thinks that she is equal with men in uncovering her face and going around unveiled, she will not be modest and will not feel too shy to mix with men. This leads to a great deal of fitnah (temptation) and widespread corruption. Al-Tirmidhi narrated (5272) from Hamzah ibn Abi Usayd from his father that he heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say, when he was coming out of the mosque and he saw men mingling with women in the street; the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to the women, “Draw back, and do not walk in the middle of the road; keep to the sides of the road.” Then the women used to keep so close to the walls that their garments would catch on the walls because they kept so close to them.
Classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 929
Adapted from the words of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) in Risaalat al-Hijaab.
And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

Jannah · 21-03-2009 11:36AM

balkanac wrote: »

Ruling on covering the face, with detailed evidence

You've got all the evidence in what you've quoted, which mentions the need for a khimar (head scarf) and jilbab (loosely fitting full length dress with long sleeves), yet it was never ordered that women should cover their face. This is a tribal tradition which pre-dates Islam and is completely unnecessary, if not a foolish option, in our western society. It is definitely obligitory that a woman's face be visible for both Hajj and Salah.

In the Qur'an is says "Tell the believing men that they should lower their gazes", that the faces of the women of the Prophet's time were not veiled. Had the entire body including the face been covered, it would have made no sense to command them to lower their gaze, since there would have been nothing to be seen.
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands. (Narrated by Abu Dawood # 4092).

It was (and in my view, still is) seen as an act of snobbery by the wealthy women who did not wish to allow others to see their face. Many believe that it is a barrier to communication, as one cannot see facial expressions, and the niqab, because it covers the face, is reminiscent of terrorist organisations, particularly in Ireland where we've had the IRA with an undoubtedly similar face covering.

All in all, if a woman wants to do it, that's her own choice, but she will receive no extra rewards and it really won't do her any favours if she intends to live in the west.

"No one said the face of a woman is loins (‘Aura) except a weak narration from Ibn Hanbal and some Shafi’i scholars. Sa'id ibn Jubayr, 'Ata and al-Awzai have stated explicitly that the showing of the face and hands is permissible.
Ibn Hazm is the Imam of the Dhahiri schools (Literal schools) mentioned many accidents prove that it is not required for a woman to cover her face."

http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/women/Niqab_not_required.htm

farrahk52 · 21-03-2009 03:11PM

Jannah wrote: »

You've got all the evidence in what you've quoted, which mentions the need for a khimar (head scarf) and jilbab (loosely fitting full length dress with long sleeves), yet it was never ordered that women should cover their face. This is a tribal tradition which pre-dates Islam and is completely unnecessary, if not a foolish option, in our western society. It is definitely obligitory that a woman's face be visible for both Hajj and Salah.

In the Qur'an is says "Tell the believing men that they should lower their gazes", that the faces of the women of the Prophet's time were not veiled. Had the entire body including the face been covered, it would have made no sense to command them to lower their gaze, since there would have been nothing to be seen.
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands. (Narrated by Abu Dawood # 4092).

It was (and in my view, still is) seen as an act of snobbery by the wealthy women who did not wish to allow others to see their face. Many believe that it is a barrier to communication, as one cannot see facial expressions, and the niqab, because it covers the face, is reminiscent of terrorist organisations, particularly in Ireland where we've had the IRA with an undoubtedly similar face covering.

All in all, if a woman wants to do it, that's her own choice, but she will receive no extra rewards and it really won't do her any favours if she intends to live in the west.

"No one said the face of a woman is loins (‘Aura) except a weak narration from Ibn Hanbal and some Shafi’i scholars. Sa'id ibn Jubayr, 'Ata and al-Awzai have stated explicitly that the showing of the face and hands is permissible.
Ibn Hazm is the Imam of the Dhahiri schools (Literal schools) mentioned many accidents prove that it is not required for a woman to cover her face."

http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/women/Niqab_not_required.htm

Aslamualikum / hi all!

I thought id checkout the thread after some time away, alhumdolillah i have been increasing my ibadah (worship) steadily may Allah azza wajal increase me in more hikmah, ameen, ya rabil alameen!.

I have to agree with jannah here, Allah swt says in the quran that the prophets wives were different to 'us normal women' they had special rules because they were in a position of leadership.

...And when ye ask (the Prophet's wives) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Qur'an 33:53

The wives of the Prophet were indeed required to wear the niqab by this Qur'anic verse. This is because the special status they had meant they had to be kept clear from all gossip and slander. Scholars say that if the wives of the Prophet, as the best of feminine examples, were required to wear niqab, then the ruling falls on all women.

However, earlier on in the same chapter, the Qur'an also very clearly states that the Prophet's wives were not similar to other women.

32. O Wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear ((Allah)), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.

Most scholars are in agreement that the verse about the screen, or concealing of the face, is only obligatory on the wives of the Prophet. They say the verses are a clear indication that the wives of the Prophet are much more restricted in their movement due to their political position, and that their code of conduct does not constitute a code of conduct for women in general."

Having said that i have worn the niqab and i love wearing it, once you take it off it feels somewhat odd, i feel no-one has the right to look at my face or anything else, why should it concern them so much? after all ITS MY BODY, they do what they like i do what i like and the humbleness and power this gives you is incredible.

Yes you may get a few odd looks even by other muslims but its a great feeling!. By the way i do believe its recommended (not obligatory) but any action one takes to preserve chastity can only earn a reward!. About living in the west, who cares, just becuase we live in the west it doesnt mean we have to do something we dont want to, why change somethong better for something worse? in islam theres no such thing as when in rome do as the romans, its when in rome do what is STILL BEST!. we should be able to dress how we want (aslong as its not provocotive).

21-03-2009 03:19PM

farrahk52 wrote: »

Having said that i have worn the niqab and i love wearing it, once you take it off it feels somewhat odd, i feel no-one has the right to look at my face or anything else, why should it concern them so much?

I think you should be asking yourself why you're concerned with your own face so much you think anybody else would be so interested in looking at it. Chances are, nobody cares and you're just drawing more attention.

I would also question your general social skills and approach to people in general, but that perhaps is for another day...

the humbleness and power this gives you is incredible.

...Humbleness AND power? right

Yes you may get a few odd looks even by other muslims but its a great feeling!. By the way i do believe its recommended (not obligatory) but any action one takes to preserve chastity can only earn a reward!

Explain it to me, what exactly does your face have to do with preserving chastity assuming the rest of you is modestly covered?

Terodil · 21-03-2009 03:23PM

Agree with bluey.

farrahk52 wrote: »

we should be able to dress how we want (aslong as its not provocotive).

Hmm, interesting, you demand tolerance but are not willing to do the same?

farrahk52 · 21-03-2009 03:25PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I think you should be asking yourself why you're concerned with your own face so much you think anybody else would be so interested in looking at it. Chances are, nobody cares and you're just drawing more attention.

I would also question your general social skills and approach to people in general, but that perhaps is for another day...

...Humbleness AND power? right

Explain it to me, what exactly does your face have to do with preserving chastity assuming the rest of you is modestly covered?

If nobody cares then why do they have an issue with it and why do we have this thread!

Humbleness in the fear of Allah and power as in it liberates you, no-one knows what you look like, you are somewhat invisible, difficult to describe..

well i thought most men would go for pretty faces primarily, i mean when you look for a prospective spouse you dont say can i have a look at your body ONLY (despite the face!). I thought that was obvious. And if men didnt care about womens faces makeup would go out in a flash!.

farrahk52 · 21-03-2009 03:29PM

Terodil wrote: »

Agree with bluey.

Hmm, interesting, you demand tolerance but are not willing to do the same?

i am tolerant, i personally dont mind women walking around with things hanging out, but i wouldnt want my 14 yr old son (in theory) to see that sortve thing, i just think its immoral, sorry but i have to draw the line somewhere....the question is where do you draw the line i suppose.

21-03-2009 03:33PM

farrahk52 wrote: »

Humbleness in the fear of Allah and power as in it liberates you, no-one knows what you look like, you are somewhat invisible, difficult to describe..

What does it matter? Why would you want to be invisible? Is there nothing more to who you are than your looks that you have to obsess over hiding them? And why don't you think you're invisible to most people anyway? I mean, generally walking along the street nobody cares what you look like and would doubtfully look at you twice anyway.
I see nothing wrong with dressing modestly and I don't want to get into an argument, but I'm not sure this is entirely healthy.

well i thought most men would go for pretty faces primarily, i mean when you look for a prospective spouse you dont say can i have a look at your body ONLY (despite the face!). I thought that was obvious.

Do you think random passersby are all looking for a spouse and staring at your face intently? Do you think your chastity walking along the street or wandering around is somehow at risk because of your face only? And how does looking for a spouse have anything to do with chastity, if they're going to be a spouse?

Men, in my experience, want a partner who has a certain personality, if they're looking for a long term partner. They may not go "let's look at your body only", they'll see what you're like to talk to, what kind of person you are, etc. If you're with someone who only cares about your looks [probably even more so than normal if you generally hide them all the time, thereby making them a bigger issue than they ought to be], your lack of face covering is NOT your problem.
There's a line between modesty and obsessing over looks and blowing them out of proportion, and I'd be concerned you're crossing that, as well as anything else.

farrahk52 · 21-03-2009 03:47PM

Do you think random passersby are all looking for a spouse and staring at your face intently? Do you think your chastity walking along the street or wandering around is somehow at risk because of your face only? And how does looking for a spouse have anything to do with chastity, if they're going to be a spouse?

you wouldnt want to marry the village bike would you?, yes its not everything but i think most men and women would be put off.

Actually i think i should have said 'potential actvity partners' not necc spouses as spouses are legitimate when married. You obviously havnt been in saudi or certain parts of the world where its a bit different to the west, i agree with you the west is much better in terms of physical sexual exploitation, in certain countries men will go up to you and touch you inappropriately, men give you their numbers despite you having kids with you in a shopping mall etc!. Alhumdolillah its not so bad in the west, although you do hear of affairs from time to time.

That aside, most men go for pretty faces and nice bodies, yes some do go for personality but you never hear ...'wow she has a wicked personality i have to get in there' its easier to have affairs with someone you find attractive. I agree with you its shallow but i have yet to find many men who go for personality over looks and then have affairs despite not being attracted to them.

And yes i agree its somewhat drastic and it isnt mandatory (according to most scholars), in islam we have differences of opinions so you can decide which opinion you choose to follow aslong as the intention for rightousness is there. Islam stops everything at the root because temptation is all around us, one of the biggest sins is fornication (zina) and how many people do we know do this? how many times have we heard it just happend i dont know why etc? its easily done and being a major sin islam recognises the need for hijab (seperation of men and women), jannah mentioned it would cause seperation but that is the whole point of it! hijab is seperation and therefore it makes it difficult for people to approach you and i also agree historically it used to be worn by snobby, wealthy high status women from the upper class, the more you covered the more honourable you were and women who were regarded as lowly would wear reavealing clothes and this was esp true in pre-islam arabia. Islam made it a obligatory for women to cover up modestly, however what is modest to one man might not be for another man.

To be honest i think most of you would not understand this because in your culture most people fornicate openly, (hope you dont get too offended by this but) it would probably be rare to find someone chaste over the age of 20 unless they are practising xtains / catholics. If you do not think any potential sin is too great then any remedial action/ preventative measure would seem too harsh so theres no point debating this as we do not share the same outlook in life.

Jannah · 22-03-2009 01:39AM

farrahk52 wrote: »

Yes you may get a few odd looks even by other muslims but its a great feeling!)

If anything you're actually drawing MORE attention to yourself by wearing niqab- in a society where a tiny minority wear hijab, never mind niqab, I really can't understand the logic behind it. A woman doesn't become invisible- she sticks out like a sore thumb. Since you know it's not necessary and that it gets negative attention (which Muslim women are supposed to shy away from) then why do you wear it? It's a little attention seeking, in my opinion.

farrahk52 wrote: »

just becuase we live in the west it doesnt mean we have to do something we dont want to, why change somethong better for something worse?

So if I went to Saudi Arabia, would they mind if I wore a bikini? After all, it is my body. Just because I would be in the Middle East doesn't mean I have to do something I don't want to- why change something better for something worse......??

farrahk52 wrote: »

we should be able to dress how we want (aslong as its not provocotive).

'Provocative' depends on who's looking. Personally, I see absolutely nothing provocative about a pair of jeans and a shirt, yet many Muslims would find this somewhat 'offensive' dress.

bluewolf wrote: »

I think you should be asking yourself why you're concerned with your own face so much you think anybody else would be so interested in looking at it. Chances are, nobody cares and you're just drawing more attention.

Thank you!

farrahk52 wrote: »

Humbleness in the fear of Allah and power as in it liberates you, no-one knows what you look like, you are somewhat invisible, difficult to describe...

Why be invisible? I know a lot of Muslim women who wear hijab with pride and want to be accepted by others without the need to disappear into the background. Nobody should be deemed as 'invisible' and I really doubt that any God would put us on this earth so that we could wish nobody was able to see us

farrahk52 wrote: »

well i thought most men would go for pretty faces primarily, i mean when you look for a prospective spouse you dont say can i have a look at your body ONLY (despite the face!).

Hum, I really don't think that sexy faces and bodies are what people look for in a spouse- a one night stand, perhaps, but not a spouse.

farrahk52 wrote: »

i am tolerant, i personally dont mind women walking around with things hanging out .... i just think its immoral

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? You don't mind it, yet you still think it's evil. Didn't you just say that people should be allowed to 'wear what they want'? The VAST majority of women don't go around "with things hanging out"- that's an exaggeration. Women can still be beautiful and not slutty without any kind of veil.

farrahk52 wrote: »

you wouldnt want to marry the village bike would you?, yes its not everything but i think most men and women would be put off.

The problem I have with this is that it is the modesty of the WOMAN and not the man that is constantly emphasised. There's this huge commotion about the woman being a shy virgin and completely chaste, yet the constraining of men if a lot less harsh- if not completely non-existant. Just because a woman doesn't cover doesn't automatically make her the "village bike". Many Muslimahs make the mistake of assuming that uncovered = immoral and slutty woman, when in actual fact, veil or no veil these women have the potential to be more chaste. Not that it even matters. Personally, I'd rather see a woman that was intelligent, brave and independent than a cowering wallflower. It reminds me of a Muslim man whose only comment on Benazir Bhutto was that "her hijab wasn't on properly". If the amount a woman covers herself is the only thing a man is concerned with, the he's setting himself up for unhappiness- after all, when the wedding night is over and done with, she's lost her virginity- so what it left?

farrahk52 · 24-03-2009 12:00AM

Jannah,

You took most of what i said out of context.

Regarding...If the amount a woman covers herself is the only thing a man is concerned with, the he's setting himself up for unhappiness- after all, when the wedding night is over and done with, she's lost her virginity- so what it left?

i am surprised about this comment, the amount a woman covers is NOT the only thing a man is concerned about and virginity itself isnt everything, its chastity thats important in islam. Most of the prophets (saw) wives were NOT virgins, they were divorced / widowed. When a woman covers she does so to please her creator and not to get any attention from men who she is not married to, to be honest as i said before you have to be on a 'different level' to think like this and i dont think many non muslims will understand it. I thin kyou mentioned something about shy virginal wallflowers, this is contrary to the prophets wives whom used to argue with the prophet (saw) and were not shy wallflowers, some were very educated and Aisha was scholarly, she had an inquisitive demeanor, questioned many things and gave advice to both men and women. Many of the women i know who wear niqabs are not shy, infact they are very outgoing and loud not to mention educated!. It takes a brave woman to walk out dressed in black head to toe in this country. I am somewhat shocked at your level of stereotyping / ignorance to be honest.

Going back to chastity, chastity continues even after one is no longer a virgin, for e.g. after one is married you still have to be chaste , ie not commit fornication or any sexual acts outside of marriage, if one was chaste until marriage and then decides to have affairs he/she is no longer chaste. The rules apply to both men and women.

By the way 'true' happiness does not come from a wife / husband or earthly pleasures it comes from worshipping Allah and doing much dhikr, for Allah (subhana wa'tala) says in the quran 'Truely in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest'.

Simon.d · 24-03-2009 11:14AM

bluewolf wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with dressing modestly and I don't want to get into an argument, but I'm not sure this is entirely healthy.

Continually wearing a Niqab while outdoors is unhealthy, full stop.. Our bodies need the UV component of sunlight to hit our skin to generate sufficient vitamin D levels... When the skin is completely covered, we can't generate sufficient levels of this vitamin, as only miniscule amounts of the chemical are derived from diet..

This deficiency becomes dangerous with women who are either pregnant or breastfeeding, and can give rise to debilitating illnesses like rickets in both themselves and their (un)born offspring.

Jannah · 24-03-2009 07:38PM

farrahk52 wrote: »

You took most of what i said out of context.

Sorry if you felt that, but I don't feel that I did and you didn't tell me what I took out of context

farrahk52 wrote: »

i am surprised about this comment, the amount a woman covers is NOT the only thing a man is concerned about and virginity itself isnt everything, its chastity thats important in islam.

Ahhhhaaa! Now I get it! I think we've actually reached a level of mutual understanding- hurrah!! I just felt that virginity was highly acknowledged because of what people hear about women being divorced if there is no blood / mother in laws being given bloody sheets after the wedding night etc, but I do know that a lot of these things can be cultural, so yep, I get that!!

farrahk52 wrote: »

to be honest as i said before you have to be on a 'different level' to think like this and i dont think many non muslims will understand it.

Ahhh now, I think non-Muslims are as equally able to comprehend Islamic issues as anyone else. I think the 'different level' you're talking about is a cultural way of thinking, and really, if an issue is truly Islamic, culture shouldn't be an problem because it's a religion that is supposed to transcend all that

farrahk52 wrote: »

I thin kyou mentioned something about shy virginal wallflowers,

In fairness, when you're talking about wanting to be invisible, I think that being a shy virginal wallflower is a pretty accurate description

farrahk52 wrote: »

this is contrary to the prophets wives whom used to argue with the prophet (saw)

Isn't that contrary to the book that Balsomething recommended on "How to Win the Heart of Your Husband" in that a man should never be criticised by his wife? Also, I'm sure there's a hadith against women making a commotion, and if you said you know loud niqabis, then aren't they going against that? "And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed"

farrahk52 wrote: »

It takes a brave woman to walk out dressed in black head to toe in this country.

Lol, that's what a Goth may also say!

Personally, I don't see anything 'brave' about it- it's unnecessary, so why should she bother put herself in a compromising position? There must obviously be some ulterior motive behind it- attention seeking? Self righteous? Because if it is clearly not asked by Allah, surely it's not for him?

Simon.d wrote: »

Continually wearing a Niqab while outdoors is unhealthy, full stop.. Our bodies need the UV component of sunlight to hit our skin to generate sufficient vitamin D levels...

Yeah, apparently it's happening a lot in places like Afghanistan and whatnot- it's just not right, healthwise or socially, and wholly unnecessary

irish_bob · 25-03-2009 11:28PM

wearing the burka is a political statement which says , i reject your countrys values and customs , why not just come clean on what the motives behind it are

DinoBot · 26-03-2009 09:25AM

irish_bob wrote: »

wearing the burka is a political statement which says , i reject your countrys values and customs , why not just come clean on what the motives behind it are

Does it still say that when worn in a muslim country ?

ODD-JOB · 28-03-2009 02:20PM

Dont forget when Catholic women are in the Vatican they cover there heads too !
In fact , it was normal Catholic tradition for women to veil themselves for church.

An icon of religious dedication , just like Nuns have a traditional head dress.

getz · 28-03-2009 02:54PM

ODD-JOB wrote: »

Dont forget when Catholic women are in the Vatican they cover there heads too !
In fact , it was normal Catholic tradition for women to veil themselves for church.

An icon of religious dedication , just like Nuns have a traditional head dress.

the older upperclass victorian also used to cover their heads and faces in public also-[see a old victorian penny] but that was in the days when femails were second class in society . -could not vote ,all property she had went to the husband on marriage-in fact its just the same as islamic states are now-but we have moved on only the catholic church still has to move forward [and one day it will] marriage vows ect

Yusuf Mirza · 28-03-2009 03:21PM

Hmm so the less clothes woman wear the more liberated they are. And the more clothes woman wear the more opressed they are. Sounds like a male dominated ideology to me. Convincing women that dressing like whores and displaying their bodies openly is liberation. No wonder our society in th the toilet. Western Liberalism and beastiality? Are they the same? Becouse one leads to the other.

Yogabba · 28-03-2009 07:35PM

No Yusuf, it is about choice. There are plenty of women in the west who dress in a conservative way. The opposite of wearing a burka is NOT walking around naked or letting it all hang out. Can you really not see the difference?
Women in the west are liberated because they have a choice in what they wear. And if they do decide to wear revealing clothes it is widely accepted that it is their prerogative. Can you say the same about Islamic countries?
And since our society is down the toilet, which Islamic society would like ours to be based on?

getz · 28-03-2009 08:44PM

Yogabba wrote: »

No Yusuf, it is about choice. There are plenty of women in the west who dress in a conservative way. The opposite of wearing a burka is NOT walking around naked or letting it all hang out. Can you really not see the difference?
Women in the west are liberated because they have a choice in what they wear. And if they do decide to wear revealing clothes it is widely accepted that it is their prerogative. Can you say the same about Islamic countries?
And since our society is down the toilet, which Islamic society would like ours to be based on?

maybe we all should all go the way of the tuareg [muslim] tribes the men cover their faces wouldent that be fun ?

Jannah · 29-03-2009 02:56PM

getz wrote: »

the older upperclass victorian also used to cover their heads and faces in public also-[see a old victorian penny] but that was in the days when femails were second class in society . -could not vote ,all property she had went to the husband on marriage-in fact its just the same as islamic states are now-but we have moved on only the catholic church still has to move forward [and one day it will] marriage vows ect

That's actually not true- a muslim woman gets to keep everything she came into the marriage with, as well as the dowry (mahl) given to her on entering the marriage.
As for the marriage vows in the Catholic religion, the VAAAAST majority of people these days don't say the 'obey' part anymore

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Hmm so the less clothes woman wear the more liberated they are. And the more clothes woman wear the more opressed they are. Sounds like a male dominated ideology to me. Convincing women that dressing like whores and displaying their bodies openly is liberation. No wonder our society in th the toilet. Western Liberalism and beastiality? Are they the same? Becouse one leads to the other.

That's not what anyone is saying at all. People are not protesting about women covering themselves, but the fact that many (in some cases are being forced) to cover themselves in a way that is detrimental to their health. Very often when women choose to wear a burka/ niqab in western society, it is really bad for them socially (and totally unnecessary from an Islamic point of view, as we have earlier seen in this thread) The niqab is an out-dated, useless tribal tradition and shouldn't be continued- if it is not for religion, then the only purpose is to oppress and control the woman if it is not her choice and if it is her choice, she is choosing to socially isolate herself from others, scare people (especially kids- God knows what they think of it) and make a deliberate political statement that is very offputting and doesn't benefit anyone.
Nobody here has a problem wiht hijab- we're just saying that face covering is not only unnecessary, but bad for everyone involved

Yogabba wrote: »

No Yusuf, it is about choice. There are plenty of women in the west who dress in a conservative way. The opposite of wearing a burka is NOT walking around naked or letting it all hang out. Can you really not see the difference?
Women in the west are liberated because they have a choice in what they wear. And if they do decide to wear revealing clothes it is widely accepted that it is their prerogative. Can you say the same about Islamic countries?
And since our society is down the toilet, which Islamic society would like ours to be based on?

I couldn't agree more with this post- that's pretty much the main point of the issue. I don't know how many times I have seen Muslims compare a burka clad woman to a female in a bikini- believe it or not, guys, but there is actually a middle road, and as Muslims, that ideology to not lean towards extremism is key to the Islamic religion.

getz · 30-03-2009 12:13PM

Jannah wrote: »

That's actually not true- a muslim woman gets to keep everything she came into the marriage with, as well as the dowry (mahl) given to her on entering the marriage.
As for the marriage vows in the Catholic religion, the VAAAAST majority of people these days don't say the 'obey' part anymore

That's not what anyone is saying at all. People are not protesting about women covering themselves, but the fact that many (in some cases are being forced) to cover themselves in a way that is detrimental to their health. Very often when women choose to wear a burka/ niqab in western society, it is really bad for them socially (and totally unnecessary from an Islamic point of view, as we have earlier seen in this thread) The niqab is an out-dated, useless tribal tradition and shouldn't be continued- if it is not for religion, then the only purpose is to oppress and control the woman if it is not her choice and if it is her choice, she is choosing to socially isolate herself from others, scare people (especially kids- God knows what they think of it) and make a deliberate political statement that is very offputting and doesn't benefit anyone.
Nobody here has a problem wiht hijab- we're just saying that face covering is not only unnecessary, but bad for everyone involved

I couldn't agree more with this post- that's pretty much the main point of the issue. I don't know how many times I have seen Muslims compare a burka clad woman to a female in a bikini- believe it or not, guys, but there is actually a middle road, and as Muslims, that ideology to not lean towards extremism is key to the Islamic religion.

sorry jannah you are correct up to a point-in pakistan, syria,and egypt woman is not allowed allowed to inherit anything --as for other muslim countrys--sura 4'11 the share of a male shall be twice that of a femail

Hobbes · 30-03-2009 12:59PM

getz wrote: »

sorry jannah you are correct up to a point-in pakistan, syria,and egypt woman is not allowed allowed to inherit anything --as for other muslim countrys--sura 4'11 the share of a male shall be twice that of a femail

So it is an issue with those countries then Islam as a whole?

hivizman · 30-03-2009 07:03PM

getz wrote: »

sorry jannah you are correct up to a point-in pakistan, syria,and egypt woman is not allowed allowed to inherit anything --as for other muslim countrys--sura 4'11 the share of a male shall be twice that of a femail

This article suggests that, at least for Syria, things are not as simplistic as "woman is not allowed to inherit anything". The article states that the Syrian Constitution allows for equal inheritance, but that Sharia Law would normally apply to Muslims. This would lead to sons receiving twice the share of daughters. As the article points out, many Muslim women don't actually receive the share to which they are entitled, but that's different from saying that women are "not allowed" to inherit anything. In Pakistan and Egypt, I understand that Sharia Law officially applies to inheritances, but I would not be surprised if many women are cheated out of their share by the male members of their families.

Perhaps it would be better to set up a new thread if we are going to discuss Muslim inheritance laws?

Jannah · 03-04-2009 07:25PM

getz wrote: »

sorry jannah you are correct up to a point-in pakistan, syria,and egypt woman is not allowed allowed to inherit anything --as for other muslim countrys--sura 4'11 the share of a male shall be twice that of a femail

The men are given more money because they must pay a dowry for their wife which is often extremely expensive.
If a man steals a woman's inheritance, it is not because he's a Muslim, it's because he's an asshole.

Woger · 07-04-2009 04:40PM

The answer tot he original question is "sexual repression".

Ho_hum · 08-04-2009 03:30AM

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Hmm so the less clothes woman wear the more liberated they are. And the more clothes woman wear the more opressed they are. Sounds like a male dominated ideology to me. Convincing women that dressing like whores and displaying their bodies openly is liberation. No wonder our society in th the toilet. Western Liberalism and beastiality? Are they the same? Becouse one leads to the other.

Yusuf, I humbly suggest you seek counselling, your loathing of women is a touch troubling.

"Western Liberalism and beastiality? Are they the same?" Of course. :rolleyes:

Woger · 08-04-2009 02:57PM

Ho_hum wrote: »

Yusuf, I humbly suggest you seek counselling, your loathing of women is a touch troubling.

"Western Liberalism and beastiality? Are they the same?" Of course. :rolleyes:

Don't be so smug, everyone knows that more Westerners emigrate to Iran and Pakistan than the other way around.

Ho_hum · 09-04-2009 03:19AM

Woger wrote: »

Don't be so smug, everyone knows that more Westerners emigrate to Iran and Pakistan than the other way around.

Why do women have to wear Burkas?

Comments