Sad state of Muslims today

[psyah]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@Insaaniyat

The hadith you are referring to occurred in the context of hajj/ihram. Which is when women are told not to wear a niqab.

The fact that the Prophet (saw) had to explicitly tell women to uncover their faces in ihram demonstrates that the women had their faces veiled the rest of the time.

Its a well known fact amongst the scholars, even the Hanafi scholars who deem the niqab to be not obligatory, that women wore a niqab as the expected norm at the time.

Norms make Sunnah ... They only make fard when there is an instruction for fard ... This is how my previous post is useful ...

So this woman who was in ihram ... can you show me how you know she was in ihram?

[psyah]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

My discussion is not intended to be an attack ... I am warning against the approach in the OP ...

If things have been "prohibited that should be allowed" - what are they? And if there is things that are "allowed but have been prohibited" what are they?

What I am looking for is:

Scholars who have prohibited something (or made its opposite mandatory) where the hadith show that it is not specifically prohibited (or not specifically mandatory).

Scholars who have permitted something when in hadith it is specifically prohibited.

[shopping_fan]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@psyah

Norms make Sunnah ... They only make fard when there is an instruction for fard ... This is how my previous post is useful

Again according to your own point, we must be cautious as to how imams or scholars have described a certain issue . So how do we know that niqaab is not fard?

[psyah]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@shopping_fan

Again according to your own point, we must be cautious as to how imams or scholars have described a certain issue . So how do we know that niqaab is not fard?

Peace sister shopping fan

That is a strange question ... Well may be not ... not if you are not aware of how ahkam are extracted from the sources. The point is that whatever is being done it is done in good faith to ascertain the correct ruling by looking to ahadith. This will lead to variation between the scholars in certain opinions ... But we can say they tried their best to genuinely come up with the correct understanding on the issue - in which case their judgment is NOT bidd'ah ...

A given thing to be a fard must primarily be stated by RasoolAllah (SAW) either when reciting Al-Qur'an or directly as "instruction" to the Muslims in the general sense. If an instruction is being given to specific person or group of people then this requires interpretation, if there is no instruction clearly stated then one can look at the mashhur (the norm) and see if they believe it is fard or they do it out of a sense of greater piety ... then if the scholars extract a ruling for something to be fard based on an interpretive state then they have introduced a bidd'ah for sure ... but that might be necessary - and it may be one that encourages good ... but as long as they can relax or bolster the ruling depending on the circumstances then they have correctly applied the idea of "interpretation" ... something can become necessary for a society without it being a "fard" in the Islamic sense.

Understanding of ahadith in terms of how they are stated ... such as "advice" or "better" states are not considered "mandatory" and to take virtuous acts which are normally done by the muhsineen i.e. they are not easy for the awam to do and to make the awam do them under obligation can have a negative effect. This is the reason I feel it is stated that every addition is a leading astray ... To remove something is also an addition - because the additional element is the ruling being applied to it. For example the various fatawa against certain neutral acts ... which have proven benefit are being deemed as forbidden. This is an addition because no such forbidding statement may be specifically given for those things.

[Scherbatsky]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@ZeeshanParvez

** (Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them.) **

[QUOTE]
Let's list the 10 top things that are considered "prohibited" but are really allowed ... and 10 top things that have been made "allowed" but are really prohibited.
[/QUOTE]

Psyah, what're the remaining 9 things that are either P/A and have been contorted to A/P, respectively?

[psyah]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@Scherbatsky

Psyah, what're the remaining 9 things that are either P/A and have been contorted to A/P, respectively?

Well let's think about that ... Care to make any observations yourself?

How about prayer? There are some groups who have said that prayer is not necessary ... Or they have altered the number prayers.

[Scherbatsky]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@psyah

Well let's think about that ... Care to make any observations yourself?

How about prayer? There are some groups who have said that prayer is not necessary ... Or they have altered the number prayers.

Oh, I thought you already had ten in mind.

Hmmm jizya? Do non-muslims pay extra tax in Muslim lands today, i.e. Saudi?

[Insaaniyat]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@psyah

My discussion is not intended to be an attack ... I am warning against the approach in the OP ...

If things have been "prohibited that should be allowed" - what are they? And if there is things that are "allowed but have been prohibited" what are they?

What I am looking for is:

Scholars who have prohibited something (or made its opposite mandatory) where the hadith show that it is not specifically prohibited (or not specifically mandatory).

Scholars who have permitted something when in hadith it is specifically prohibited.

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.

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.”

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.

t 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.

[psyah]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@Insaaniyat

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.

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.”

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.

t 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.

The first paragraph is citing the mashhur of wearing jilbab ... not the face veil and it is not a command. Note what I have said earlier.

I have been unable to find the hadeeth of Ibn Abbas (RA) in Arabic or even the reference for it ... can you help me please? By the sound of it ... the need is specific - like call of nature. And was it to all believing women? If Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (RA) was giving the order it must have been some time later ... how can we see from this hadith whether this instruction is a "fard" or simply a juristic instruction - "a requirement without it being classed as 'fard'" .... ?

The word juyoob as stated comes from jayb ... jayb is a fold or a curve ... the "face" is interpretation as I stated earlier ...

I have no idea what the last paragraph is trying to say or imply with respect to this conversation ... can you elaborate please?

May the truth come from you so that I may accept it from your words ... Ameen

[psyah]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@Scherbatsky

Oh, I thought you already had ten in mind.

Hmmm jizya? Do non-muslims pay extra tax in Muslim lands today, i.e. Saudi?

Well ... Non-Muslims in Saudi are there as their "protectors" not as the protected ... LOL

So rather than jizyah I would say that there is certainly a breach of the "taking of non-Muslims as protectors (friends)" ...

[shopping_fan]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

Psyah bahi, what do you mean by "all believing women"? Were some ordered to cover face while others were exempt?
While the ayah translates, "tell your wives and daughters and believing women".

A question in general , isnt the face more attractive than hand and feet, so why would it be exempt from covering while gloves were also part of hijab at that time?

[psyah]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@shopping_fan

Psyah bahi, what do you mean by "all believing women"? Were some ordered to cover face while others were exempt? While the ayah translates, "tell your wives and daughters and believing women".

A question in general , isnt the face more attractive than hand and feet, so why would it be exempt from covering while gloves were also part of hijab at that time?

Sister shopping fan ... The ayah tells our women to cover themselves ... I don't disagree with that - all I am saying is that covering of the face is not specifically mentioned which means if a woman covers her body they way she understands it she would be okay under that, especially when she takes the other verse "cover their adornments except what is apparent" (apparent is what is obviously seen - the face is necessary for effective communication and identification) ... if there is a mashhur narration on the way the pious women of the time did it - then the most we can say is that - they understood it that way ... but that is not how "fard" is ascertained ... unless the **uncovering of the face can be shown to be haram **only then can we say that covering the face is "fard". Anyway ... my point aside there is khilaf on this matter ...

Who is talking about hands and feet? We are talking about the features of women that make them distinct from men ... long hair, bosoms, hip curves, etc.

If it is "fard" then the majority of Muslims on this planet are in blameworthy states ... If it is not "fard" and the covering of the body has been given room for interpretation (that there is a minimum that should be covered and if the face is covered that is a higher position of excellence, but not mandatory) - then the majority of the Muslims on this planet are not in blameworthy states.

[Insaaniyat]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@psyah

The first paragraph is citing the mashhur of wearing jilbab ... not the face veil and it is not a command. Note what I have said earlier.

I have been unable to find the hadeeth of Ibn Abbas (RA) in Arabic or even the reference for it ... can you help me please? By the sound of it ... the need is specific - like call of nature. And was it to all believing women? If Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (RA) was giving the order it must have been some time later ... how can we see from this hadith whether this instruction is a "fard" or simply a juristic instruction - "a requirement without it being classed as 'fard'" .... ?

The word juyoob as stated comes from jayb ... jayb is a fold or a curve ... the "face" is interpretation as I stated earlier ...

I have no idea what the last paragraph is trying to say or imply with respect to this conversation ... can you elaborate please?

May the truth come from you so that I may accept it from your words ... Ameen

If you understand the Arabic of that time you would know that the word jilbab includes face coverings.

[Insaaniyat]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@psyah

Sister shopping fan ... The ayah tells our women to cover themselves ... I don't disagree with that - all I am saying is that covering of the face is not specifically mentioned which means if a woman covers her body they way she understands it she would be okay under that, especially when she takes the other verse "cover their adornments except what is apparent" (apparent is what is obviously seen - the face is necessary for effective communication and identification) ... if there is a mashhur narration on the way the pious women of the time did it - then the most we can say is that - they understood it that way ... but that is not how "fard" is ascertained ... unless the **uncovering of the face can be shown to be haram **only then can we say that covering the face is "fard". Anyway ... my point aside there is khilaf on this matter ...

Who is talking about hands and feet? We are talking about the features of women that make them distinct from men ... long hair, bosoms, hip curves, etc.

If it is "fard" then the majority of Muslims on this planet are in blameworthy states ... If it is not "fard" and the covering of the body has been given room for interpretation (that there is a minimum that should be covered and if the face is covered that is a higher position of excellence, but not mandatory) - then the majority of the Muslims on this planet are not in blameworthy states.

Yes the majority of Muslims are blameworthy unless they are ignorant of the proper Islamic ruling on the matter

[psyah]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@Insaaniyat

Yes the majority of Muslims are blameworthy unless they are ignorant of the proper Islamic ruling on the matter

Being ignorant of the proper Islamic ruling is a blameworthy state ... but I can't accept that the majority of Muslims are in that state ... I can accept that niqab may be applied as a legal requirement, but I cannot accept it is "fard" in the Islamic sense as there is ikhtilaf on the matter. Therefore we should we lenient towards our fellow Muslims and that is the Sunnah.

[psyah]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

So thus we are following the Jews (The Zealots) in their condemnation of others as being sinners - this finger wagging - is another one of the ways that we have followed the previous people.

[psyah]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@Insaaniyat

If you understand the Arabic of that time you would know that the word jilbab includes face coverings.

According to my understanding, etymologically speaking and from hadith - a jilbab is a wrapping which serves the purpose of diffusing the contours of the body ... and can be worn in a transitory manner to cover the whole body including face when the need arises ... for example when going to call of nature ... or when a woman does not want to be identified or in certain circumstances would need to completely cover can do so ... but does not remain in state as a norm.

[ajazali]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

People really dont want to co-exist as they are so bent on distinguishing 'non-issues' as to whether naqab is 'fard' or legal requirement while disregarding the issue that ummah is getting away from the basic/fundamental values of Islam.
I dont understand what is so hard to accept to follow what ummahat ul momineen and sahabiat followed in case of niqab.

[shopping_fan]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@ajazali

I dont understand what is so hard to accept to follow what ummahat ul momineen and sahabiat followed in case of niqab.

Yes, that's what I would like to know too. And I seek Allah's help to understand His words as is the right of it,

[psyah]

Re: Sad state of Muslims today

@ajazali

People really dont want to co-exist as they are so bent on distinguishing 'non-issues' as to whether naqab is 'fard' or legal requirement while disregarding the issue that ummah is getting away from the basic/fundamental values of Islam. I dont understand what is so hard to accept to follow what ummahat ul momineen and sahabiat followed in case of niqab.

Because to believe a fard is not a fard is kufr ... If I say 5 prayers are not fard then I will not be Muslim. Likewise if I say 6 are fard that is the same ...

If there is ikhtilaf then we have more freedom to adopt different views without having to do takfir on each other ... And that is what it comes down to ... The fact is exactly that ... To do more in emulation of the mothers of the believers is simple straightforward ... But those who do not ... What about them? What about those who believe that they do not have to do exactly as the mothers of the believers ... What about them? After the passing of RasoolAllah (SAW) they were forbidden from marrying again ... Is that to be followed by all Muslim ladies?