Lately i have noticed while coming across some historical records of islamic history that Sahaba (ra) got attracted to Females of thier time due to their physical beauty, and sent proposals for marraige. Which is perfectly alright, as it is natural. Also noticed in some narations that people (sahaba) used to recognise female Sahaba (non-related ) upon seeing them.
Also there is some hadees i read a few days ago a person asked prophet (pbuh) what should he do if his gaze accidentally falls on an un-related woman. Prophet said that he should look away.
Plus women these days used to go to masjid for prayers five times a day, along with men. And there is no niqab or hiding face in women’s dress code for prayers.
But on the other hand niqaab looks like an arabic cultural tradition. I dont know the history of niqaab , Maybe it was a fashion among Noble and aristocrates of Arabia in those days, regardless of religion. Later Islamic scholars deemed it fit that all women should follow the suit and incorporated it in Islam.
If no women wore niqaab in those days, then how come the Prophet PBUH said when you are in ihraam you can't cover your face. Naturally some must have been covering that they were told to uncover. As for going to the mosque, they could have worn it to the mosque and then removed while praying and put back on after prayers
Not all scholars say niqaab is obligatory and many women who wear it dont think its haraam to not wear it
But on the other hand niqaab looks like an arabic cultural tradition. I dont know the history of niqaab ,** Maybe it was a fashion among Noble and aristocrates of Arabia in those days, regardless of religion***.* Later Islamic scholars deemed it fit that all women should follow the suit and incorporated it in Islam.
[/quote]
Similar trend of covering or hiding face in public is found south asian society. i.e ghoonghat. This is totally different form of niqab and it is quite tradional way of hiding facial beauty from strangers.
I am not aware if there was any such tradition in ancient persia.
Desert=sand=needing a way to keep sand out of the face=niqab. Men and women covered their face in the desert for necessity. Only now has it become "identified," with a "chaste," woman.
also complete seclusion from public was ordained only for the wives of the Prophet [saw]
so much so that Umar[ra] debated whether they shud be allowed to go to Hajj or not .
Very good topic of discussion. Niqab is a bid'a husana ... That is the only way it can be seen as good and not be cited in the hadith. This concept will throw many people who reject the concept of bid'a hasana into disrepute.
Unless the SAME level of literal criteria is not provided for the evidence of niqab either you take it off or you admit that it IS a 'good' bid'a. It is only fair, for many practices by Muslims are dismissed by other Muslims on account of their evidence being weak and thus are practicing bid'a, the same can be said about certain things adopted by those who fingerpoint others.
I am in support of niqab, but I am also in support of fairness and reasonable basis of belief. If I see others celebrating the birthday of Muhammad (SAW) as a party I will let them as long as they do not transgress their normal actions, but I will not condemn the celebration outright like some will like to do regarding puritan versions based on certain hadith books.
Reasonableness and mindfulness has been removed from us if we do not understand this, furthermore if we do not even realise that it could even be part of our own actions that innovation is flourishing.
Every 'invention' may be an act astray ... but 'invention' needs to be defined clearly. Do not define it by it's examples, define it by it methods and principles. Truth is not every 'invention' is an act of going astray or else cars, computers, etc literally fall into that too
^ bro the problem is EVERYONE just wants to fit religion according to their lifestyle and not the other way round.
so those women who oppose niqab will become champions of puritin islam whenever this topic is brought up ,
^ bro the problem is EVERYONE just wants to fit religion according to their lifestyle and not the other way round.
so those women who oppose niqab will become champions of puritin islam whenever this topic is brought up ,
Peace bro Das Reich
What I am trying to point out is that more often than not it is the puritan Muslims who support the niqab, but at the same time do not realise that it is far from a prescriptive instruction rather that it could be viewed as a 'bid'a hasana' ironically something the puritan Muslims reject as a valid thing.
On the other hand if they were true to their colours i.e. real puritans then they would indeed champion the rejection of niqab, (provided there really is no clear evidence for it). However, more often than not you will see that puritan Muslims are very close to conservative Muslims.
To be conservative according to Islamic principles is a good thing too. It not only helps to keep things original but also favours protecting people from harm over subjecting them to possible benefits. I for this reason consider niqab an extra 'good' that what is beyond requirement, but rewarding. Those people who treat a desirable thing as though it is required are bound to seem conservative, but it doesn't hurt if they are lenient on others.
We should only expect others to meet basic requirements, if we want to exceed them ourselves that is our perogative. This way round we can be nicer to others who may be doing things differently to ourselves, but in the process we can try to fulfil extra requirements to be pious, and then pray that we are appointed as examples who they choose to follow.
evidence? what did the Messenger of Allah said to men in regard to marrying a woman? Plus, face is not the only attractive part of the body!
doesn’t mean that they were not wearing niqab? There are other means by which you can recognize people. Also, remember the numbers of Muslims.
how does this prove that they were not wearing niqab? by gaze does not mean you only stare at person’s face and even if we assume it is the case, still does not prove your point.
again, does not prove that they were not wearing niqab. Couldn’t they have wore niqab and prayed?
If it is Arabic culture or tradition, then we should find non-Muslim women wearing niqab; however, there is zero evidence for this. Neither any historical evidence prove your point. If niqab was already part of Arabic culture, why was 'Umar (May Allah be pleased) eager for hijab ruling? If something better already existed, why would Allah Ta’ala reveal something lesser? If you read the whole background regarding the reason of the revelation of the hijab ayat, you will find the answer to your questions, insha’Allah.
The difference of opinion among scholars is fiqh issue and I think the niqab opinion is stronger opinion of the two, and Allah Ta’ala knows best.
Here is a more accurate question, “Was niqab not there from the beginning?”, i.e. did the ruling of hijab come during the life of Muhammad (SAW), if so, then it becomes even more apparent that niqab is an innovation that was designed to fulfil hijab and extra prudence on top. The fact of history not talking about niqab proves that it may indeed be a ‘pious’ innovation.
These are some casual observations. Of course i have no objection on niqab or hiding face from strangers. Oddly enough, i find it attractive :k:
Just comming back to dynamics of evolution of religious traditions… If Islam had emerged from subcontinent instead of Arabia, Ghoonghat would have taken precedence over any other form of face covering because of its nativity.
But now, nowhere it is offered as an alternate to niqab (since it serves the same purpose ) just because this noble tradition comes from pagan india. But we shall happily follow the tradition of pagan Arabia because it is duly stamped and re-inforced by islamic clergy
I don’t think there is enough evidence to deem niqab a pre-Islamic practice, but I believe it was developed into a greater hijab due to some jurists who interpret the ‘beauty’ to include the face, but other jurists who not opposed the view but relaxed it on the basis of ‘except what is apparent’.
I truly do think it to be an Islamic innovation rather than an adopted element of pre-Islamic Arabic.
I tend to Partially agree with the reasoning of above two respected members.
Niqab was a need as well as a fashion in Arabia.
Just like All around the world men cover their head with various type of hats and caps. Somewher it is dictated by fashion and somewhere is weather. If Islam prescribed covering head then there is nothing new in it.
But if some scholar says that my traditional Indian Pagri is less noble than any other type of head covering then surely i have a right to question its reasoning.
based on the ethics in relating to someone with sincerity and following modesty, one can imagine the piety together with intense purity of alertness enabled them to feel eachother's prsence in a crowd, because of being single mindedly a given person's.
another line of research says that the tradition of the veil came from Mary.
all arab women, back then, did not adorn veils.
it could be due to familiarity to the color and fabric of the veil as well.
I heard a scholar on tv . to look at the face carefully while choosing for a girl for yourself for marriage . If you find her attractive .. then proceed etc.
so in this refernce .. i think its better to keep the face hidden from many na - mehram eyes in daily life .
also i Heard that niqaab was originally an iranian tradition and spread to the subcontinent .
yes natives of arab hid their faces to save themselves from sand storms .
no one has answered my question and that is: if niqab was already part of Arab culture, how come we find no evidence for it (non-Muslims wearing it), after all niqab is higher class of hijab, isn't? If it was already there, why did 'Umar (May Allah be pleased him) want Muslim women to be covered and be recognized as Muslim women? Why did Allah Ta'ala reveal a lesser or similar form of something which already existed? These are simple common sense questions which could be used to reach the conclusion.
I understand the point that they may used to cover their faces when going on journey or something due to conditions of desert but this is not relevant to the subject. We are here talking about covering as a sign of modesty and submission.
said to men in regard to marrying a woman? Plus, face is not the only attractive part of the body!