Students of Al-Azhar University wearing niqab to class..
By now, almost everyone has heard of the recent statement by Sheikh al-Azhar Sayyid Muhammad Tantawi regarding the banning of purdah or niqab. It has caused a great shock not only to the ordinary muslims but also to the ulamas. Below is Yusof al-Qaradawi's latest statement concerning this issue where he expressed his shock with the ban of niqab. He said:
"No Muslim scholar, whether among the predecessors or contemporary scholars, has ever been reported to have regarded wearing niqab as forbidden except in the case of ihram for women. The scholarly difference regarding the issue of niqab is only over whether it is obligatory, recommendable, or merely permissible.
Thus it is untenable that a Muslim jurist would regard niqab as prohibited or even merely undesirable in Islam. Hence, I was really shocked to learn that the writer Baha' published an opinion attributed to some Al-Azhar scholars to the effect that they believe that veiling the woman's face falls under prohibiting what Almighty Allah has originally permitted. In fact, the advocates of this view cannot be said to be of firm knowledge about the Qur'an or the Sunnah or fiqh."
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
.
There is an opinion that niqab is a bid`ah that is alien to Muslims and that it has nothing at all to do with the religion of Islam, having penetrated Muslim society during the ages of extreme deterioration. This is neither a scientific nor an objective view. It is an oversimplification of the issue, which deviates people from scrutinizing the subject as it really is.
Any person learned about the sources of knowledge and scholarly views cannot argue about the issue being controversial among scholars. I mean here the issue of whether it is permissible to uncover the woman's face or whether it is obligatory to veil it and the hands too.
Muslim scholars of the predecessors — including jurists, exegetes of the Qur'an, and scholars of Hadith — have differed over this issue. Their difference was due to their various understandings and attitudes towards the religious texts about the subject at hand, especially that there is no definitive clear-cut text about it. Had there been any, there would have been no scholarly difference regarding it.
Among the texts they have differed over is this Qur'anic verse: [ And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their zeenah (charms, or beauty and ornaments) except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof] (An-Nur 24:31).
Ibn Mas`ud was reported to have said while commenting on this verse, "[Except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof] here refers to the clothes and cloaks (women are wearing)." This means the outer garments that cannot be hidden.
Ibn `Abbas was also reported to have said while explaining this verse, "[Except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof] refers to kohl and rings." A similar view was also reported to have been adopted by Anas ibn Malik and `A'ishah. Sometimes Ibn `Abbas would add to "kohl and rings" "henna with which hands are tinted, bracelets, earrings, and necklaces." He might even refer tozeenah as the places where ornaments are worn, by saying "the face and palms of the hands." This was also reported to have been the opinion of Sa`id ibn Jubair, `Atta', and others.
Some scholars also included part of the woman's arm in what is referred to by [what (must ordinarily) appear thereof].
Furthermore, Ibn `Attiyah explained these words by saying that they refer to the parts of the woman's body that are unintentionally unveiled by means of wind and the like. (See the exegesis of the verse as explained by Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, and Al-Qurtubi; and see also its explanation in Ad-Dur Al-Manthur, vol. 5, pp. 41-42.)
Scholars have also differed concerning the explanation of the words [draw their cloaks close round them] in the verse [O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, that so they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful] (Al-Ahzab 33:59).
Ibn `Abbas was reported to have said, commenting on this verse, an opinion contrary to what he was reported to have expressed as comment on the first verse referred to above! It was also reported that `Ubaidah As-Salmani, one of the Tabi`un (Successors) explained [drawing their cloaks] practically by covering his head and face and unveiling his left eye only. A similar example was also reported to have been set by Muhammad ibn Ka`b Al-Qardhi.
But `Ikrimah, servant of Ibn `Abbas, differed with them, saying "The woman is to cover the unveiled part of her chest by a cloak that she draws round her." Sa`id ibn Jubair said, "It is not permissible for a Muslim woman to be seen by a man lawful for her to marry unless she puts on a face veil in addition to the hijab which extends from her head to her chest." (See Ad-Dur Al-Manthur, vol. 5, pp. 221-222 as well as the sources referred to above for an explanation of the relevant verse.)
As for my point of view on the issue, I see that the woman's face and hands are not part of her `awrah (parts of her body that should not be exposed in public), and hence, it is not obligatory for her to veil them. I also believe that the evidence supporting this opinion is stronger than that supporting the opposite opinion. Many contemporary scholars agree with me in this view, like Nasir Ad-Din Al-Albani (as shown in his book Hijab Al-Mar'ah Al-Muslimah fi Al-Kitab wa As-Sunnah), the majority of the Al-Azhar scholars in Egypt, the scholars of Az-Zaytunah University in Tunisia, the scholars of Al-Qarawiyeen University in Morocco, and many Pakistani, Indian, and Turkish scholars as well as others.
However, it is not right to claim that there is unanimity among contemporary scholars that it is permissible to uncover the Muslim woman's face and hands, as there are many scholars in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, a number of the other Gulf countries, Pakistan, and India, who believe that veiling the woman's face and hands is obligatory. Among them are the late eminent Saudi scholar Sheikh `Abdul-`Aziz ibn Baz, and the late well-known Pakistani scholar Abu Al-A`la Al-Mawdudi (as shown in his book Al-Hijab).
Living contemporary scholars who also believe that veiling the face is obligatory include the famous Syrian writer Dr. Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan Al-Buti, who published a letter in this respect, "To Every Young Woman Who Believes in Almighty Allah." There are also other letters and fatwas published from time to time that condemn women who uncover their faces and adjure them in the name of religion and faith to wear niqab and not to listen to the modern scholars who want to subjugate religion to modernism. The advocates of this view may even refer to me as one of those modern scholars!
But never do I hold that this opinion — that covering the woman's whole body except the face and hands is the obligatory attire for the Muslim woman — be imposed on the woman who believes in the other opinion, according to which veiling the face is obligatory and uncovering it is forbidden. I will only blame the advocates of the latter opinion if they attempt to impose their attitude on the proponents of the former one and accuse them of being sinful and wrongdoers for adopting it. It is agreed upon that, with regard to the controversial issues on which scholars have given different personal legal opinions, there is no blame to be placed on a person for following a certain personal legal opinion to the exclusion of others.
The advocates of my opinion and I, in turn, do not have any right to censure the supporters of the counteropinion for believing thatit is obligatory for women to wear niqab. For, first, this counteropinion is a scholarly one within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence, and, second, had we criticized them, we would have committed a mistake which we are originally against, that is, denying others the right to differ with us.
Moreover, there are some women who see that, to be on the safe side, wearing a face veil is not obligatory, but, rather, desirable, and draws its wearer closer to piety and fear of Allah. There is nothing wrong in so believing, and no one has the right to blame the proponents of this opinion for following it, so long as this would not be of any harm to others or contradict either public or personal interests.
No Muslim scholar, whether among the predecessors or contemporary scholars, has ever been reported to have regarded wearing niqab as forbidden except in the case of ihram for women. The scholarly difference regarding the issue of niqab is only over whether it is obligatory, recommendable, or merely permissible. Thus it is untenable that a Muslim jurist would regard niqab as prohibited or even merely undesirable in Islam. Hence, I was really shocked to learn that the writer Baha' published an opinion attributed to some Al-Azhar scholars to the effect that they believe that veiling the woman's face falls under prohibiting what Almighty Allah has originally permitted. In fact, the advocates of this view cannot be said to be of firm knowledge about the Qur'an or the Sunnah or fiqh.
Suppose even that wearing niqab is merely permissible — as I do myself believe — not obligatory or desirable. Even in such a case, any Muslim woman may wear it, and no one has the right to prevent her from doing so. It is her personal right, and in practicing it she neither falls short of her duties nor causes others harm. Even man-made laws and the conventions of human rights advocate the personal rights of people.
It is ironic that freedom of dress is given to those who choose to uncover parts of their bodies without encountering any objection, while severe censure is launched against the wearers of niqab who consider it a teaching of their religion that they cannot neglect!
-END-
Any person learned about the sources of knowledge and scholarly views cannot argue about the issue being controversial among scholars. I mean here the issue of whether it is permissible to uncover the woman's face or whether it is obligatory to veil it and the hands too.
Muslim scholars of the predecessors — including jurists, exegetes of the Qur'an, and scholars of Hadith — have differed over this issue. Their difference was due to their various understandings and attitudes towards the religious texts about the subject at hand, especially that there is no definitive clear-cut text about it. Had there been any, there would have been no scholarly difference regarding it.
Among the texts they have differed over is this Qur'anic verse: [ And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their zeenah (charms, or beauty and ornaments) except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof] (An-Nur 24:31).
Ibn Mas`ud was reported to have said while commenting on this verse, "[Except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof] here refers to the clothes and cloaks (women are wearing)." This means the outer garments that cannot be hidden.
Ibn `Abbas was also reported to have said while explaining this verse, "[Except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof] refers to kohl and rings." A similar view was also reported to have been adopted by Anas ibn Malik and `A'ishah. Sometimes Ibn `Abbas would add to "kohl and rings" "henna with which hands are tinted, bracelets, earrings, and necklaces." He might even refer tozeenah as the places where ornaments are worn, by saying "the face and palms of the hands." This was also reported to have been the opinion of Sa`id ibn Jubair, `Atta', and others.
Some scholars also included part of the woman's arm in what is referred to by [what (must ordinarily) appear thereof].
Furthermore, Ibn `Attiyah explained these words by saying that they refer to the parts of the woman's body that are unintentionally unveiled by means of wind and the like. (See the exegesis of the verse as explained by Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, and Al-Qurtubi; and see also its explanation in Ad-Dur Al-Manthur, vol. 5, pp. 41-42.)
Scholars have also differed concerning the explanation of the words [draw their cloaks close round them] in the verse [O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, that so they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful] (Al-Ahzab 33:59).
Ibn `Abbas was reported to have said, commenting on this verse, an opinion contrary to what he was reported to have expressed as comment on the first verse referred to above! It was also reported that `Ubaidah As-Salmani, one of the Tabi`un (Successors) explained [drawing their cloaks] practically by covering his head and face and unveiling his left eye only. A similar example was also reported to have been set by Muhammad ibn Ka`b Al-Qardhi.
But `Ikrimah, servant of Ibn `Abbas, differed with them, saying "The woman is to cover the unveiled part of her chest by a cloak that she draws round her." Sa`id ibn Jubair said, "It is not permissible for a Muslim woman to be seen by a man lawful for her to marry unless she puts on a face veil in addition to the hijab which extends from her head to her chest." (See Ad-Dur Al-Manthur, vol. 5, pp. 221-222 as well as the sources referred to above for an explanation of the relevant verse.)
As for my point of view on the issue, I see that the woman's face and hands are not part of her `awrah (parts of her body that should not be exposed in public), and hence, it is not obligatory for her to veil them. I also believe that the evidence supporting this opinion is stronger than that supporting the opposite opinion. Many contemporary scholars agree with me in this view, like Nasir Ad-Din Al-Albani (as shown in his book Hijab Al-Mar'ah Al-Muslimah fi Al-Kitab wa As-Sunnah), the majority of the Al-Azhar scholars in Egypt, the scholars of Az-Zaytunah University in Tunisia, the scholars of Al-Qarawiyeen University in Morocco, and many Pakistani, Indian, and Turkish scholars as well as others.
However, it is not right to claim that there is unanimity among contemporary scholars that it is permissible to uncover the Muslim woman's face and hands, as there are many scholars in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, a number of the other Gulf countries, Pakistan, and India, who believe that veiling the woman's face and hands is obligatory. Among them are the late eminent Saudi scholar Sheikh `Abdul-`Aziz ibn Baz, and the late well-known Pakistani scholar Abu Al-A`la Al-Mawdudi (as shown in his book Al-Hijab).
Living contemporary scholars who also believe that veiling the face is obligatory include the famous Syrian writer Dr. Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan Al-Buti, who published a letter in this respect, "To Every Young Woman Who Believes in Almighty Allah." There are also other letters and fatwas published from time to time that condemn women who uncover their faces and adjure them in the name of religion and faith to wear niqab and not to listen to the modern scholars who want to subjugate religion to modernism. The advocates of this view may even refer to me as one of those modern scholars!
But never do I hold that this opinion — that covering the woman's whole body except the face and hands is the obligatory attire for the Muslim woman — be imposed on the woman who believes in the other opinion, according to which veiling the face is obligatory and uncovering it is forbidden. I will only blame the advocates of the latter opinion if they attempt to impose their attitude on the proponents of the former one and accuse them of being sinful and wrongdoers for adopting it. It is agreed upon that, with regard to the controversial issues on which scholars have given different personal legal opinions, there is no blame to be placed on a person for following a certain personal legal opinion to the exclusion of others.
The advocates of my opinion and I, in turn, do not have any right to censure the supporters of the counteropinion for believing thatit is obligatory for women to wear niqab. For, first, this counteropinion is a scholarly one within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence, and, second, had we criticized them, we would have committed a mistake which we are originally against, that is, denying others the right to differ with us.
Moreover, there are some women who see that, to be on the safe side, wearing a face veil is not obligatory, but, rather, desirable, and draws its wearer closer to piety and fear of Allah. There is nothing wrong in so believing, and no one has the right to blame the proponents of this opinion for following it, so long as this would not be of any harm to others or contradict either public or personal interests.
No Muslim scholar, whether among the predecessors or contemporary scholars, has ever been reported to have regarded wearing niqab as forbidden except in the case of ihram for women. The scholarly difference regarding the issue of niqab is only over whether it is obligatory, recommendable, or merely permissible. Thus it is untenable that a Muslim jurist would regard niqab as prohibited or even merely undesirable in Islam. Hence, I was really shocked to learn that the writer Baha' published an opinion attributed to some Al-Azhar scholars to the effect that they believe that veiling the woman's face falls under prohibiting what Almighty Allah has originally permitted. In fact, the advocates of this view cannot be said to be of firm knowledge about the Qur'an or the Sunnah or fiqh.
Suppose even that wearing niqab is merely permissible — as I do myself believe — not obligatory or desirable. Even in such a case, any Muslim woman may wear it, and no one has the right to prevent her from doing so. It is her personal right, and in practicing it she neither falls short of her duties nor causes others harm. Even man-made laws and the conventions of human rights advocate the personal rights of people.
It is ironic that freedom of dress is given to those who choose to uncover parts of their bodies without encountering any objection, while severe censure is launched against the wearers of niqab who consider it a teaching of their religion that they cannot neglect!
-END-
Related news below:
Tant
awi haramkan purdah KAHERAH 9 Okt. - Imam besar Mesir, Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi (gambar) berkata, para pelajar dan guru-guru tidak lagi dibenarkan memakai purdah di dalam kelas dan asrama institusi pengajian Islam terulung, al-Azhar sebagai sebahagian daripada usaha kerajaan untuk menangani amalan radikal dalam Islam.
Tantawi yang juga merupakan ketua al-Azhar mengumumkan perkara itu, beberapa hari selepas beliau membuat kenyataan: purdah atau niqab 'tiada kena mengena dengan Islam'.
Tindakan beliau itu telah mencetuskan bantahan kuat daripada golongan yang menganggapnya sebagai satu serangan terhadap Islam serta beberapa pertubuhan hak asasi yang menganggap pengharaman niqab mencabuli kebebasan berperlembagaan.
Isu sebanyak mana tubuh wanita Islam perlu ditutup telah menjadi isu yang kerap dipertikai antara tokoh Islam.
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2009&dt=1010&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Luar_Negara&pg=lu_07.htm
Tantawi digesa letak jawatan
KAHERAH 8 Okt. – Seorang anggota Parlimen pembangkang mendesak ketua sebuah institusi pengajian agama terkenal dalam dunia Islam, Syeikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi supaya meletak jawatan selepas beliau mengarahkan seorang pelajar membuka purdah yang dipakainya.
Desakan tersebut dibuat ketika puluhan pelajar yang memakai purdah atau niqab, mengadakan demonstrasi di hadapan Universiti Kaherah, yang mengharamkan purdah di kawasan kampusnya.
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2009&dt=1009&pub=utusan_malaysia&sec=Luar_Negara&pg=lu_03.htm&arc=hive
1st He Makes Riba - "Halal" (permits usury)
Now He Forces Young Girls To UNCOVER?!
– Yasir Qadhi talks about “Mu-Shaykh al-Azhar - At-Tantawi
Dr Sayyid Tantawi Azhar
Riba Incident - over 20 years ago...
Once he ruled "haram" on "riba", later said the exact same type of transaction was "halal" (permitted).
When asked why he changed his opinion, Dr. Tantawi said, "Riba is a mystery of mysteries surrounding in a mystery"
(Looks like Tantawi is the 'mystery')
- That statement got him the title of "Grand Mufti" (big scholar) of Al Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt.
http://islamnewsroom.com/news-mainmenu-28/1016-muslims-say-qfakh-shakhq-bans-niqab-also-made-rida-ok
6 comments:
agama penyebab kemuliaan dan kehinaan seseorang..kefahaman agama hanya dengan jalan mujahadah...
Kesimpulan fatwa Qaradawi:
1. Niqab TIDAK wajib
2. Aurat wanita seluruh badan KECUALI muka dan tapak tangan.
3. Namun niqab itu adalah tingkatan iman seseorang. Tidak boleh dihalang.
Itu yang gua paham.
Wallahua'lam.
Due to our tarnish Imaan we can't abide by most of what Shariah has pre-ordained for us. Please let alone this group that who want to practice upon what masses can't do.
Salam,
Saya mula pakai purdah di USA masa thn akhir belajar dulu, patutnya lebih awal pakai...tapi ada keraguan juga tentang hukumnya. kaji byk kali, hati rasa terpanggil untuk pakai...lgpun dah buat solat istikharah utk join jmh Tabligh...Rmi yg tnya, bila kita dah balik ke tanahair, kat US takpe ke pakai camni?Well, US is or was a free country, u can do whatever u want, wear whatever u want to wear...fullamak, ada yg pakai bikini pegi kelas, xkan kita pakai purdah tak boleh?Tp yg x sedapnya mat2saleh ni pelik dgn pakaian kita...siap cuit2 bahu kita tanya, why do u wear like this?Kita yg gelabah jangan ada malay boy yg nampak, bkn apa, satgi depa perli, mat saleh cuit hang bagi, kami tak boleh... haa bisa, bisa...
ibnuzain,
barangsiapa bermujahadah di jalan Allah, nescaya ditunjukkan jalan-jalan hidayah
ben,
gua pun faham gitu.
Sbg tambahan, TAK ada mana-mana ulama pernah haramkan purdah kecuali Tantawi tu. Perselisihan pendapat ulama hanya antara obligatory, recommendable or merely permissible. Qardawi ambik permisible.
Qardawi tak pertahankan fatwa Tantawi kerana unreasonable. [di situ digunakan word untenable: untenable adj (of arguments, theories, etc) unreasonable, vulnerable to attack, tidak dapat dipertahankan: I feel his argument is ~, saya rasa hujahnya tdk dapat dipertahankan.]
-Wallahualam
Munir,
Kita sama-sama doa, agar takde lagi fatwa2 pelik macam ni.
p/s, semalam Cikgu khairul call, dia kata nak pergi haji 23 Okt ni.
Ummi Ali,
Kalau camtu, blaja kat US pun boleh pakai purdah, kat Azhar pulak yg ban purdah. Dunia dah terbalik. Anyway, buat semata-mata kerana Allah, semoga Allah terima niat dan amalan kita sentiasa...
A'ah 23hb insya-Allah bertolak, 17hb ni ada buat kenduri sikit kat Taman sebab Ustaz Azmi pun naik sekali.
Post a Comment