Sayyiduna Umar Radi Allahu Anhu forbid hijab, women walked topless in Madinah - Shaykh Hamza Yousuf
Posted 24 July 2010 - 12:48 AM (#2)
Posted 24 July 2010 - 01:35 AM (#3)
Hadrat umar(ra) forbade the slaves wearing full hijab in style of muslim women(to distinguish them from each other),he did not order them to go topless.
Genearally slavegirls would be allowed to walk around with heads uncovered whereas the believing free women would have to observe full hijab.
Posted 24 July 2010 - 02:10 AM (#4)
what is the reference of this incident .....
probably it will be some shia's own made lie to insult hazrat umaar .......
umar is the person who is made form the caly of nabi 's hujra ... he know better islam then us ....
so just dont pay attention to such lies ....
Posted 25 July 2010 - 03:36 PM (#5)
"There were bare breasted women walking in madina" please clarify and discuss
In the early days of al-Islam up to the time of al-Imam Malik slave women were walking around in al-Madinah bare-breasted. This is well-known and confirmed in many sources.
However, before everyone starts blowing their tops and getting red-faced, perhaps they should know that according to the shari'ah (and this might surprise some of you), the 'awrah for a slave woman - even a Muslim slave woman - is only from her navel to her knees.
With some minor differences, there is an agreement in the four madhabs that the awrah of a slave woman is like that of a man, from the navel to the knees. A slave woman can thus be in public and expose her breasts. There are also rules in fiqh for what part of a slave woman you are allowed to look at, and if the awrah outside of prayer is the same as that in prayer. However, if we were living in the time of the khalifa of Umar ibn al-Khattab , the sahaba would have walked in the streets and passed slave women with no veil on their head, and their breasts exposed. This is the view of the four madhabs.
And the practice of the slave-women going around bare-breasted, although it was common, was however strongly disapproved of by the 'ulama. Read this quote from "Kitab al-Jami'" of al-Imam Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani al-Maliki (died 386 AH):
"He (i.e. al-Imam Malik ibn Anas) strongly disapproved of the behaviour of the slave women of al-Madinah in going out uncovered above the lower garment. He said: "I have spoken to the sultan about it, but I have not received a reply." He said: "Beat slave women if they do that.""
So yes it did happen. And it was tolerated by many people because the 'awrah of the slave woman is the same as that of a man. But it was disapproved of by the people of knowledge for obvious reasons which I am sure any normal man would understand.
Posted 25 July 2010 - 04:13 PM (#6)
this seems to suggest an anomolous and odd stace vis a vis the upper parts of the woman.
1. Why was the awrah different fro a free women and a slave women
2. What was the reasoning for this odd behaviour?
Posted 25 July 2010 - 04:21 PM (#7)
Where did you get that from qalam sahib? I didn't hear that in the lecture unless I'm mistaken.
Nay, truly! He is like a ruby amongst stones...
[[PLEASE PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO PRAY FOR ME AND MY EXAMS - al-Fatiha!]]
Posted 25 July 2010 - 05:23 PM (#10)
Why does the title say "Sayyiduna Umar (ra) FORBADE hijab"?
Where did you get that from qalam sahib? I didn't hear that in the lecture unless I'm mistaken.
go to 1:28
Posted 25 July 2010 - 07:30 PM (#11)
Now, that's certainly one big surprise for me...
Posted 28 July 2010 - 10:56 AM (#13)
please anser my original post and question
the statemtn still stands vis vis why such actions were taken and if the hijab is so good why werent slave women allowed to do it? Is this inactoin making theminto 2nd class citizens
Posted 28 July 2010 - 12:17 PM (#14)
Al marghinani (al Hidaya) is of the opinion that slave girls were not required to wear the veil as they were required to work and thus wearing the veil would have caused hardship.
The argument of slaves being second class citizens is anomolous since slavery is transfer of ownership to another person and by this fact alone one is not the same as the person who is not owned by anyone and is free.
Please remember that slavery was common and rife before the coming of Islam yet Islam promoted the idea of setting slaves free and this fact is highlighted by the Ijma of the jurists that Zakah can be given to a slave who wants to be freed. Now if all the Muslim world is giving Zakat to this category or if even half or a quarter are giving Zakat to this category then the number of people benefiting is unimaginable. It proves Islam as equitable and just.
Furthermore, wine was drunk and its drinking was rife, Allah outlawed it slowly via a three fold proclamation because society was so used to alcohol that it was necessary to wean the public away from it in a slow and measured way (and Allah knows best), slavery was no different in this regard.
As for the previous posts from the brother on the awrah of women being from the navel to the knees, it is semi correct. The actual positions of the Fuqaha are that the Awrah of navel to knees is only for women but outside the presence of women it is everything excluding the hands, face and the feet.
Posted 28 July 2010 - 12:33 PM (#15)
i still find it hard to beliee that a faith that came to benefit All mankind regardless of status and structure can be used to discriminate in such a manner.
If the hijab is such a good thing that is was ordained for the belivers in the quran then surely it could be extended to others as well.
Even if the slaves werent muslims this nakedness is beyond belief and goes against the grain of what constitues moral behaviour
for women to be in such a state is worrying for me and i cannot reconcile this event with the moral code that islam has brought
Posted 28 July 2010 - 01:48 PM (#16)
I feel your concerns but it has nothing else to do with except our perceptions.
In the early days of Islam and during the time of jahiliyyah, the people were used to this concept and it was a fact. People were used to the fact that the Holy Ka'bah was circumbulated naked, newborn baby girls were buried alive, etc.
It is a strange fact for us because slavery is non-existant today.
Moreover, the Muslims are better off financially today.
For e.g. it is compulsory for a person to give sadqa-tul-fitr if he has an article in his possession which is regarded as an extra commodity. Everyone of us has an extra piece of clothing so we all have to give it but there were some Companions Radi Allahu Anhum who had ONE piece of cloth to cover themself and that too was shared in turns between the spouses at times of prayer. If they could not provide enough for themself, it is understandable for their slaves to roam in this manner.
This state of slaves was permissible for the convenience of their owners because it was common for people to own slaves and permissible too. It will not be seen as a degrading or immoral state.
Once the Companions Radi Allahu Anhum informed The Holy Prophet SallAllahu Alayhi Wa Aalihi Wa Sallam that a certain Sahabi Radi Allahu Anhu didnot used to sit after Salat-ul-Fajr like every other Sahabi did and learn the Deen from our Beloved Master SallAllahu Alayhi Wa Aalihi Wa Sallam. The Holy Prophet SallAllahu Alayhi Wa Aalihi Wa Sallam asked the Companions to stop the Sahabi the next day after the Jama'ah of Fajr so that their actions can be questioned.
The Companions did so and after the regular session of preaching, The Holy Prophet SallAllahu Alayhi Wa Aalihi Wa Sallam asked them the reason for their haste in leaving the Masjid and not sitting to learn Deen.
The Blessed Companion said that they had only one piece of cloth in their possession and they and their Blessed spouse would share it in turns to cover their Awrah and offer Salah. They would leave the Masjid after the Fajr Jama'ah so that their wife could then use the cloth to offer her Fajr Salah but that morning they were asked to wait on the Command of The Holy Prophet SallAllahu Alayhi Wa Aalihi Wa Sallam and the sun had risen and their wife had missed her Fajr Salah so our Beloved Master SallAllahu Alayhi Wa Aalihi Wa Sallam gave them the gladtiding that they should return to their wife and tell her that Allah's Messenger SallAllahu Alayhi Wa Aalihi Wa Sallam Commands her to offer her Fajr Salah and it shall be accepted as offered and will not be considered as Qadha, SubhanAllah.
We can imagine their devotion to Deen that they readily accepted poverty but didnot let it hinder in them and offering of Salah, SubhanAllah. May Allah Azzawajal Bless them abundantly, Aameen!
How will a person provide for their slaves if they were unable to provide for themself efficiently. Like I said, this ruling was a convenience. We should judge it by applying the conditions of that era.
Another relevant fact is that scholars write if a person has no clothes, he must dig a hole in the ground big enough for his Awrah to be covered and the stand in it and offer Salah. Leaving Salah is not an option here either.
The narrators mention that The Holy Prophet's (SallAllalu Alayhi Wa Aalihi Wa Sallam) Blessed armpits' whiteness would shine when they would raise their Blessed hands in du'a. This tells us that wearing an unstitched cloth to cover the upper body was common too. This has also been seen as a practice amongst the Sufis. A prime example is Sayyiduna Ambar Warsi Rahmatullah Alayh. It was a practice of the Shaykh to cover their upper body with a piece of cloth rather than wearing a Kurta or Qameedh.
Coming back to your concern, these rulings were passed because it was a fact at the time. If freed men and women were so poor financially then imagine the state of slaves. Later on scholars did force to end this practice. Conditions improved and people must have been misusing it to mistreat their slaves.
Posted 28 July 2010 - 02:56 PM (#17)
my i continue this conversation with you as a pm?
I want to post comments on this issue but i dont want to be seen b others as deliberatly asking awkard point?
ps if you feel that my points could be of wider benefit i could continue to post here
Posted 08 September 2010 - 11:18 AM (#19)
so you are saying that the religion that cae to emanipate and free the people from physical and mental slavery still had remnants of the class structure i.e.
free women could cover up byt the
slaves had to go around naked thus provinf their subjugation as a slave?
it makes no sense