Between niqab and hijab (II)
- Details
- Category: Philosofaith
- Written by M. U. Ndagimundagi@maktoob.com 08059637394 SMS Only
- Hits: 2883
Those who opine that niqab is not wajib for a Muslim woman have similarly advanced reasons in support of their argument. First, they argue that the meaning of “khimaar”, and “jilbab” in the two verses (Qur’an 33:59 and Qur’an 33: 53) quoted by proponents of the view which seeks to make niqab compulsory for women, do not necessarily mean “covering one’s face”. Second, the fact that the terms “khimaar”, “jilbab” and “hijab” may have more than one meaning implies, according to them, that an isolated interpretation of the terms (such as covering the entire face, or leaving one or two eyes) cannot be used to establish the compulsory use of niqab by women. Third, that majority of scholars from among the prophet’s companions (sahabah) and the succeeding generation (tabi’un) interpret “except that which must (ordinarily appear thereof” in Qur’an 24:31 to be “the face and hands of a woman”. Other scholars interpret the same expression to connote the kohl and ring as well as the parts of a woman’s body on which such accessories are worn. Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir and Al-Baihaqi relate that Ibn Abbas (RA) said that kohl, rings, bangles and necklaces worn by a woman are permitted to be seen as parts of “that which must (ordinarily) appear thereof”
Having made a brief exposition of the arguments of those who say niqab is wajib, we shall now proceed to elucidate how scholars have attempted to refute the claims by proponents of the compulsory use of niqab. This shall be brought to you in the same order in which the views of proponents were presented in the first part of this discourse. First, scholars disagree with the proponents’ generalization of the commandment in Qur’an 33:53. Those who challenge this generalization contend that the injunction was specifically directed to the prophet’s wives. In their opinion, if Allah (SWT) had wished the ruling to be for all Muslim women; He would not have used the phrase “his wives” in the verse. Other verses in the same chapter (Surat ul-Ahzab) underscores the unique position of the prophet’s wives upon whom profound responsibilities greater than those of other Muslim women were placed. For instance, Qur’an 30:33 prescribes double of the punishment due to other Muslim women guilty of manifestly immoral conduct when such is committed by prophet’s wives.
Second, the Arabic word “al-idna’a” mentioned in Qur’an 33:59 is defined by linguists to mean “to come close to” and not “covering the face” as interpreted by proponents. The explanation of the verse under reference as related in the tafsir of At-Tabari is that a woman “should bring the jilbab close to her face without covering it”. Third, scholars are equally opposed to the use of Qur’an 24:31 by proponents in order to justify their opinion for the obligatory use of niqab by women. The antagonists of this view opine that the Qur’anic expression “except what must (ordinarily) appear thereof” refers to jewelries or similar accessories as well as the parts of a woman’s body on which the jewelries are worn including the ears and the neck. This, they say, is why the hands and the wrists are not to be compulsorily covered because, in their view, the “face” and the “hands” are parts of “what must (ordinarily) appear thereof”. Fourth, scholars say the hadith “they would return to their homes unrecognized” as quoted by proponents in part one of this discourse actually means “they would return to their homes unrecognized, because of darkness”. The antagonists of the view further claim that if women never unveiled their faces, it would have been difficult to recognize their faces let alone who they were even in broad daylight. For the sixth point of argument, scholars oppose the “fitnah” excuse offered by proponents. That, even during the prophet’s time, people committed adultery (zinah) and were given capital punishment (hadd); meaning that it is not only the generation of those who came fourteen centuries later that live in societies replete with immoralities. Fitnah, according to this view, has always been there; meaning that such is not enough to make niqab compulsory for women.
The position of Maliki scholars on the topic of this discourse is represented in their opinion that the nude (awrah) of a woman who is not a slave is her entire body except her face and two hands. This view thus permits a Muslim woman to reveal her face and hands. While some Shafi’i scholars share in this view, others including Ahmad bn Naqib (d. 765 AH) and later scholars of the school opine that the use of niqab by women is compulsory. While many Hannafi scholars agree that a woman may reveal her face and hands, later scholars of the school consider niqab as compulsory for women. The Hambali scholars are divided in their opinions about whether a woman could reveal her face and hands. A famous scholar of the school, Ibn Qudamah, argues that a woman may do so.
The space of this column is grossly inadequate to give details of all the arguments for and against the compulsory use of niqab by women. Nonetheless, it is apparent from the foregoing that the strength of evidence lies with scholars who consent that a woman may reveal her face and hands in the public. Yet, the discussion between proponents and opponents of the view that makes niqab compulsory may continue in the intellectual world for some time. However, such debates must not be allowed to undermine the unity of the Muslim ummah. We advise proponents not to find faults with those who are convinced that the hijab suffices as a covering garment for a woman. Those opposed to the view are equally encouraged to tolerate proponents and their views; and vice versa. May Allah (SWT) guide us, amin.
Welcoming Ramadan:
Ramadan, which is due to commence next week Tuesday or Wednesday, is less than a week from today. One of the problems that have always characterized the commencement of this spiritual month in the past is the traditional controversy that typified the sighting of the Ramadan crescent, each time Muslims were due to begin the Ramadan fast in Nigeria. However, this column finds it relevant to remind believers of the unified manner in which last year’s Ramadan, for once in many years, was started. We hope to experience same this year so that such controversies could be said to have become history in our part of the Muslim world. Happy Ramadan fast in advance!
Articles
Between niqab and hijab (II)
Category: Philosofaith Written by M. U. Ndagimundagi@maktoob.com 08059637394 SMS Only Hits: 2883
Those who opine that niqab is not wajib for a Muslim woman have similarly advanced reasons in support of their argument. First, they argue that the meaning of “khimaar”, and “jilbab” in the two verses (Qur’an 33:59 and Qur’an 33: 53) quoted by proponents of the view which seeks to make niqab compulsory for women, do not necessarily mean “covering one’s face”. Second, the fact that the terms “khimaar”, “jilbab” and “hijab” may have more than one meaning implies, according to them, that an isolated interpretation of the terms (such as covering the entire face, or leaving one or two eyes) cannot be used to establish the compulsory use of niqab by women. Third, that majority of scholars from among the prophet’s companions (sahabah) and the succeeding generation (tabi’un) interpret “except that which must (ordinarily appear thereof” in Qur’an 24:31 to be “the face and hands of a woman”. Other scholars interpret the same expression to connote the kohl and ring as well as the parts of a woman’s body on which such accessories are worn. Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir and Al-Baihaqi relate that Ibn Abbas (RA) said that kohl, rings, bangles and necklaces worn by a woman are permitted to be seen as parts of “that which must (ordinarily) appear thereof”
Having made a brief exposition of the arguments of those who say niqab is wajib, we shall now proceed to elucidate how scholars have attempted to refute the claims by proponents of the compulsory use of niqab. This shall be brought to you in the same order in which the views of proponents were presented in the first part of this discourse. First, scholars disagree with the proponents’ generalization of the commandment in Qur’an 33:53. Those who challenge this generalization contend that the injunction was specifically directed to the prophet’s wives. In their opinion, if Allah (SWT) had wished the ruling to be for all Muslim women; He would not have used the phrase “his wives” in the verse. Other verses in the same chapter (Surat ul-Ahzab) underscores the unique position of the prophet’s wives upon whom profound responsibilities greater than those of other Muslim women were placed. For instance, Qur’an 30:33 prescribes double of the punishment due to other Muslim women guilty of manifestly immoral conduct when such is committed by prophet’s wives.
Second, the Arabic word “al-idna’a” mentioned in Qur’an 33:59 is defined by linguists to mean “to come close to” and not “covering the face” as interpreted by proponents. The explanation of the verse under reference as related in the tafsir of At-Tabari is that a woman “should bring the jilbab close to her face without covering it”. Third, scholars are equally opposed to the use of Qur’an 24:31 by proponents in order to justify their opinion for the obligatory use of niqab by women. The antagonists of this view opine that the Qur’anic expression “except what must (ordinarily) appear thereof” refers to jewelries or similar accessories as well as the parts of a woman’s body on which the jewelries are worn including the ears and the neck. This, they say, is why the hands and the wrists are not to be compulsorily covered because, in their view, the “face” and the “hands” are parts of “what must (ordinarily) appear thereof”. Fourth, scholars say the hadith “they would return to their homes unrecognized” as quoted by proponents in part one of this discourse actually means “they would return to their homes unrecognized, because of darkness”. The antagonists of the view further claim that if women never unveiled their faces, it would have been difficult to recognize their faces let alone who they were even in broad daylight. For the sixth point of argument, scholars oppose the “fitnah” excuse offered by proponents. That, even during the prophet’s time, people committed adultery (zinah) and were given capital punishment (hadd); meaning that it is not only the generation of those who came fourteen centuries later that live in societies replete with immoralities. Fitnah, according to this view, has always been there; meaning that such is not enough to make niqab compulsory for women.
The position of Maliki scholars on the topic of this discourse is represented in their opinion that the nude (awrah) of a woman who is not a slave is her entire body except her face and two hands. This view thus permits a Muslim woman to reveal her face and hands. While some Shafi’i scholars share in this view, others including Ahmad bn Naqib (d. 765 AH) and later scholars of the school opine that the use of niqab by women is compulsory. While many Hannafi scholars agree that a woman may reveal her face and hands, later scholars of the school consider niqab as compulsory for women. The Hambali scholars are divided in their opinions about whether a woman could reveal her face and hands. A famous scholar of the school, Ibn Qudamah, argues that a woman may do so.
The space of this column is grossly inadequate to give details of all the arguments for and against the compulsory use of niqab by women. Nonetheless, it is apparent from the foregoing that the strength of evidence lies with scholars who consent that a woman may reveal her face and hands in the public. Yet, the discussion between proponents and opponents of the view that makes niqab compulsory may continue in the intellectual world for some time. However, such debates must not be allowed to undermine the unity of the Muslim ummah. We advise proponents not to find faults with those who are convinced that the hijab suffices as a covering garment for a woman. Those opposed to the view are equally encouraged to tolerate proponents and their views; and vice versa. May Allah (SWT) guide us, amin.
Welcoming Ramadan:
Ramadan, which is due to commence next week Tuesday or Wednesday, is less than a week from today. One of the problems that have always characterized the commencement of this spiritual month in the past is the traditional controversy that typified the sighting of the Ramadan crescent, each time Muslims were due to begin the Ramadan fast in Nigeria. However, this column finds it relevant to remind believers of the unified manner in which last year’s Ramadan, for once in many years, was started. We hope to experience same this year so that such controversies could be said to have become history in our part of the Muslim world. Happy Ramadan fast in advance!