Women: Cover up and shut up

This is a guest post by Ibn Khaldun

****

niqabi robberThe Times recently gave space to Fatima Barkatulla to present a hopelessly misleading defence of the niqab (or, as the Times fawningly describes it, “[a]n insider guide to common misconceptions”). Fatima attempts to address seven issues that have been raised around the Niqab.

The piece is here for all to see. I would like to respond to her points one by one.

1) The Niqab is a symbol of female subjugation.

Of course it is. Just because a woman in the UK is not forced to wear niqab does not stop it being a symbol of subjugation. The Salafi men who decided that women should wear niqab did so because it fits in with their idea of how a woman should behave in society – stay in the bedroom and kitchen, if she ventures outside then the mere sight of her face will cause widespread sexual chaos. Most simply, a black sheet covering a woman’s body is a very powerful way of controlling her nature as a sexual being and restricting it to a realm controlled by her family or husband. Fatima speaks about the handful of women she knows who voluntarily donned the Niqab – I admire the freedom they enjoy in this country to decide whether or not to wear niqab. Fundamentally, however, the fact that they are volunteering to wear niqab has no impact on its status as a symbol of female subjugation. They should be grateful that they have the freedom to make such a choice about their dress, a privilege their sisters living in Salafi societies don’t enjoy.

2)  Women who wear the Niqab cannot possibly contribute to society

This depends on your definition of ‘contributing to society’. A niqab wearing women has deliberately made a choice which will restrict her role in the outside world. Many employers would be reluctant to employ women (or indeed anyone) who insisted on covering the face; there are many professions like teaching, healthcare, customer service, law etc. in which the wearing of the niqab severely impedes the ability to perform the job. Indeed, according to Fatima, many niqab-wearing women prefer to work in all female environments so that they don’t have to cover their faces. Doesn’t this prove the point that wearing niqab inhibits a woman’s ability to contribute to society? And how many professions have 100% female environments? Even a school for girls will have male teachers, janitors and other staff. The fact that they can only work in 100% female environments means their contribution to society is severely restricted. It is, therefore, no wonder that Fatima states that many prefer to just be mothers. Of course they will, the niqab has closed off many of the other avenues women can follow to contribute to society.

3) The niqab isn’t in the Qur’an

Fatima comments that some theologians have interpreted Quranic verses as meaning that the face should be covered. I’m sure they have since the Quran has been interpreted by a variety of different people at different times and in different contexts. The fact is the Quran does NOT directly tell women to cover anything except their bosoms. Any other inferences are the result of human interpretation influenced by context and theologians’ personal desires. Clearly we don’t live in a society today where modesty refers to being covered from head to toe in black cloth. If anything it’s much more likely to provoke unwanted attention.

4)   Wearing the niqab implies that all men are predatory

Fatima erroneously claims that the niqab does not imply that all men are predatory and is simply useful for protecting the moral fabric of society. She cites an inappropriate analogy between a house being locked at night and a women being covered. The truth is that the niqab is actually offensive to men in that it suggests that the mere look of a women’s face is enough to trigger an uncontrollable sexual urge which could result in a mass outbreak of sexual assaults. Just as if you leave your house unlocked you can expect somebody (not everybody) to burgle it, Fatima’s argument is that a woman who doesn’t hide herself away can expect to be raped. If the niqab, as Fatima argues, does not presume that women are to blame for provoking men’s aggressive sexual interest and instead is a means of regulating sexuality in general in society, then why don’t men wear it? Why are men’s faces left uncovered? Do they not provoke sexual desire in women? The onus of protecting society from unhealthily expressed sexual desire should not be on women to cover up everything but rather on men to behave themselves.

5)  The niqab poses a security risk at banks and airports

Just as motorcyclists with helmets are expected to show their faces in banks and other places where identification is important, Muslims should be no different. Anyone who enters a bank should have their face on display at all times. It is unfair to expect airport staff in airports all over the world to make special exemptions for niqabis by having a special section for them to unveil which is staffed exclusively by females, especially since Salafis themselves are so inflexible when it comes to respecting other people’s interpretations of Islam. Pure hypocrisy.

6)  Niqab wearers can’t possibly be teachers.

It’s true they can’t unless they remove their Niqab because facial communication is so important in teaching. Again they are severely restricting their job opportunities if they are going to limit themselves to working in schools which have absolutely no male staff at all.

7) Banning the niqab will free those Muslim women who are coerced into wearing it

I don’t agree with a ban either, but extremists Salafis who promote such a bizarre practice for this day and age must be challenged. They are contributing towards the Saudisation of Muslim communities everywhere and are oppressing women by promoting the view that if they don’t cover their faces they will burn in hell and can expect to face aggressive male sexual interest. Empowering women is about giving them choices but it is very disingenuous for Salafis to use this line or argument because it is they who deny such choices to fellow Muslims whom they regularly condemn for not following backward literalist views of Islam.  People should be free to dress how they want but they should also accept that this can create problems for themselves if they choose to adopt bizarre and impractical clothing.

This entry was posted in Fashion, Your View and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

45 Comments

  1. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted September 30, 2009 at 3:44 PM | Permalink

    Fatima – what a prat that women is.

  2. Zalloom
    Posted September 30, 2009 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

    In a free democratic society a woman should be allowed to wear the niqab if she likes and take it off if she likes. But by wearing it she must accept:

    1) Prejudice by ignorant people
    2) The limit it places on her in contributing to society
    3) It’s not fard (obligatory) for her to cover her face and covering her face does not make her more religous or better than someone who doesn’t.

    If she still wants to wear it that’s fine.

  3. Abu Faris
    Posted September 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM | Permalink

    Another sensible (in the proper sense of the word) post from a traveller of sense.

    Shukran.

  4. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    Another sensible (in the proper sense of the word) post

    Yeah illustrated by a picture of someone in niqab robbing a bank. Because that of course is an accurate representation of how women who wear niqab live their lives. How sensible.

  5. Posted October 1, 2009 at 9:37 AM | Permalink

    ” Because that of course is an accurate representation of how women who wear niqab live their lives. How sensible.”

    No that’s an accurate representation of a criminal robbing a bank and taking full advantage of the niqab as a means of hiding her/his identity from the CCTV cameras.

    Of course, we would like to stress that this illustration is not representative of how all criminals live their lives.

  6. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

    Faisal

    No that’s an accurate representation of a criminal robbing a bank and taking full advantage of the niqab as a means of hiding her/his identity from the CCTV cameras.

    Great so presumably you’d illustrate your article on the immigrant underclass with a picture of an immigrant mugging/stealing , or your Orthodox Jewish one with a pic of Baruch Goldstein or Orthodox Jews assaulting Palestinian civilians or an article about Muslims with a picture of a terrorist (oh wait in the last case you probably would)!

  7. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

    Another crap and nonsensical article from spittoon .Its full of contradictions and outright misogyny which judges women by their appearance and sees them as unable to make autonomous decisions. Its also highly patronizing implying women in niqab aren’t aware of any potential difficulties they face when they know more than anyone

    1) The Niqab is a symbol of female subjugation.
    Of course it is

    .
    No that’s the miniskirt

    Just because a woman in the UK is not forced to wear niqab does not stop it being a symbol of subjugation. The Salafi men who decided that women should wear niqab did so because it fits in with their idea of how a woman should behave in society – stay in the bedroom and kitchen, if she ventures outside then the mere sight of her face will cause widespread sexual chaos.

    Except it wasn’t “Salafi men” who decided this. Niqab is part of Islam –it was worn by the Prophet’s wives the mothers of the believers and is considered at least mustahabb by all of the 4 Sunni schools. It isn’t just worn by Salafis – Deobandi women for example also wear it as do Muslim women from other groups including Sufis
    You also conveniently ignore the women scholars who have said that Niqab is Fard/Mustahabb
    Apparently Niqabis are subjugated if they listen to Male Muslim scholars who say they should wear niqab but not subjugated if they listen to Male secularists like Ibn khaldun who tell them to take it off/how they should dress !!!
    It also ignores the fact that the same symbols has different meanings in different contexts.
    The author condemns Salafi men for treating women as agents of sexual chaos by making the face veil obligatory then in the next paragraph says “the niqab is a powerful way of restricting women’s nature as a seuxla being.” – doing exactly what he condemns the Salafis for!!!
    Clearly it’s the author who sees women primarily as sexual beings above all else

    Most simply, a black sheet covering a woman’s body is a very powerful way of controlling her nature as a sexual being and restricting it to a realm controlled by her family or husband.

    Given that it’s only worn outside the home this is evidently self-contradictory. It also ignores the many women who wear niqab/hijab in opposition to what male members of their family want; You clearly know nothing about the Muslim community.

    . They should be grateful that they have the freedom to make such a choice about their dress, a privilege their sisters living in Salafi societies don’t enjoy.

    And their sisters in secular France and Turkey and elsewhere in Europe don’t have less we forget

    This depends on your definition of ‘contributing to society’. A niqab wearing women has deliberately made a choice which will restrict her role in the outside world. Many employers would be reluctant to employ women (or indeed anyone) who insisted on covering the face; there are many professions like teaching, healthcare, customer service, law etc. in which the wearing of the niqab severely impedes the ability to perform the job.

    A hilariously sexist and chauvinistic list of “jobs for women”. You fail to mention that employer prejudice is the main reason. Blind people cannot see the faces of those they interact with –does that restrict their contribution to society?

    Indeed, according to Fatima, many niqab-wearing women prefer to work in all female environments so that they don’t have to cover their faces. Doesn’t this prove the point that wearing niqab inhibits a woman’s ability to contribute to society?

    No because she said many not all and since when is working with men a condition for contribution to society. Sounds like man-worship from Ibn Khaldun

    And how many professions have 100% female environments? Even a school for girls will have male teachers, janitors and other staff. The fact that they can only work in 100% female environments means their contribution to society is severely restricted.

    Er they cant “only work in 100% female environments” . When the work in with males they don the niqab.It also ignores for example the numerous people who work from home.
    Apparently in Ibn Khaldun’s misogynistic little world you only contribute to society if
    1) You work with men
    2) You work outside the home

    It is, therefore, no wonder that Fatima states that many prefer to just be mothers. Of course they will, the niqab has closed off many of the other avenues women can follow to contribute to society

    “Just” Mothers – yeah mothers don’t contribute anything to society do they ? (though funnily when white middle class women choose to be full time Mums its lauded by the Daily Mail etc as evidence for their care for their kids – though not of course when Muslims or other women do it)

    3) The niqab isn’t in the Qur’an
    Fatima comments that some theologians have interpreted Quranic verses as meaning that the face should be covered. I’m sure they have since the Quran has been interpreted by a variety of different people at different times and in different contexts.

    Again a false hypothesis because Islam is not based solely on the Quran Actually the niqab comes from the mothers of the believers the Prophets wives and the female sahabas
    Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Hadith # 282
    Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba (Radhiallaahu Ánha) “Aisha (Radhiallaahu Ánha) used to say: “When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces.

    The fact is the Quran does NOT directly tell women to cover anything except their bosoms. Any other inferences are the result of human interpretation influenced by context and theologians’ personal desires.

    Yeah your interpretation isn’t based on your personal desires. There is consensus that hijab is Fard. We are seriously expected to believe that all the deeply devout Muslim ulema men and women down the centuries who feared God and for whom hellfire was a greater reality than the things we touch and see every day deliberately changed the religion knowing the punishment for this, whilst a bunch of irreligious Munafiqs who mock Islam aren’t changing the religion to suit their desires!!!

    The argument that The Quran does NOT directly tell women to cover anything except their bosoms is absurd because the next verse says
    “and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, or their brothers’ sons or their sisters’ sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.” (Quran 24:31).”

    Which means Spittoon is saying that Muslim women CAN show their bosoms to “their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, or their brothers’ sons or their sisters’ sons” !!!!

    Clearly we don’t live in a society today where modesty refers to being covered from head to toe in black cloth. If anything it’s much more likely to provoke unwanted attention

    Since when do the ever changing mores of society dictate revelation? We live in a society where drinking alcohol isn’t considered wrong. Should Muslims then drink alcohol regardless of what the texts say? Oh wait you at Spittoon probably do!

    4) Wearing the niqab implies that all men are predatory
    Fatima erroneously claims that the niqab does not imply that all men are predatory and is simply useful for protecting the moral fabric of society. She cites an inappropriate analogy between a house being locked at night and a women being covered. The truth is that the niqab is actually offensive to men in that it suggests that the mere look of a women’s face is enough to trigger an uncontrollable sexual urge which could result in a mass outbreak of sexual assaults.

    By the same token a woman covering ANY part of her body and not walking around totally naked is saying the same to you and all men
    You seem to be implying that women should dress in a way that isn’t offensive to men- which is what you condemn Salafis who impose niqab for allegedly saying !!!

    If the niqab, as Fatima argues, does not presume that women are to blame for provoking men’s aggressive sexual interest and instead is a means of regulating sexuality in general in society, then why don’t men wear it? Why are men’s faces left uncovered?

    Why in the UK is it legal for a man to go bare-chested in public but not a woman?

    Do they not provoke sexual desire in women? The onus of protecting society from unhealthily expressed sexual desire should not be on women to cover up everything but rather on men to behave themselves.

    Again this is your basic ignorance of Islam. The verses preceding hijab tell men to lower their gaze and to dress modestly. Look at how traditional dress is in any Muslim country and you’ll see it conceals the male body
    And you hypocrites if a Muslim women refused to shake hands with a man (or vice versa viz Lucy James at Quillam) would be the first to condemn the Muslim for not allowing themselves to be touched.

    5) The niqab poses a security risk at banks and airports
    Just as motorcyclists with helmets are expected to show their faces in banks and other places where identification is important, Muslims should be no different. Anyone who enters a bank should have their face on display at all times.
    It is unfair to expect airport staff in airports all over the world to make special exemptions for niqabis by having a special section for them to unveil which is staffed exclusively by females, especially since Salafis themselves are so inflexible when it comes to respecting other people’s interpretations of Islam. Pure hypocrisy.

    1) As mentioned earlier it isn’t only Salafis who wear niqab
    2)You seem unaware that Muslims also pay taxes
    3) Its hardly a major inconvenience for a female staff member to go somewhere private and see a niqabis face. That’s their job to take care of the needs of their customers. Unless Spittoon says, they are Muslims!.

    6) Niqab wearers can’t possibly be teachers.
    It’s true they can’t unless they remove their Niqab because facial communication is so important in teaching. Again they are severely restricting their job opportunities if they are going to limit themselves to working in schools which have absolutely no male staff at all

    Implying that .
    1) Blind or partially sighted people cant learn
    2) You can only understand someone by seeing their face
    Since we can’t see the facial expressions of the author of this article why did he bother writing it since he won’t be understood!

    7) Banning the niqab will free those Muslim women who are coerced into wearing it
    I don’t agree with a ban either, but extremists Salafis who promote such a bizarre practice for this day and age must be challenged.

    Look forward to you challenging Orthodox Jews for their dress or saying about them “People should be free to dress how they want but they should also accept that this can create problems for themselves if they choose to adopt bizarre and impractical clothing.”

  8. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM | Permalink

    It is unfair to expect airport staff in airports all over the world to make special exemptions for niqabis by having a special section for them to unveil which is staffed exclusively by females, especially since Salafis themselves are so inflexible when it comes to respecting other people’s interpretations of Islam. Pure hypocrisy.

    So by your logic because the Bangladeshi government refuses to give citizenship and rights to the non Bengali Biharis the the UK government shouldnt give British citizenship to anyone from Bangladesh. Hmmmm.

  9. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

    Oooooh! Looks like we touched a verve there. But he is right all women should walk around in black tents, that way there will be no sexual vice just like our little paradise on earth called Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, didn’t that result in most of the young men bumming each other?

  10. Abu Faris
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

    Muslim,

    1) The Niqab is a symbol of female subjugation.
    Of course it is

    .
    No that’s the miniskirt

    In fact, one might suggest that both are symbols of female subjugation. On the other hand, I can find few instances of male members of the family forcing the women of the family to wear miniskirts.

    Niqab is part of Islam –it was worn by the Prophet’s wives the mothers of the believers and is considered at least mustahabb by all of the 4 Sunni schools.

    And these are weasel words. Some scholars regard the niqab as mustahabb – not every scholar so thinks. Further, a definition of mustahabb is a recommended form of worship or action. Doing a mustahab activity will be rewarded by Allah but not doing a Mustahab activity will not be considered sinful. E.g. Reading Quran daily.

    Most mustahab acts have greater benefit/reward (thawab) than mandatory (wajib) activities.

    Note – mustahabb acts are not wajib acts.

    You appear also to not be able to distinguish between mustahabb acts and fardh acts. The latter are obligatory, the former are not obligatory. Fardh is thus synonymous with wajib, not mustahabb as you want.

    There is consensus that hijab is Fard [sic].

    I would challenge that. Even if you could show that such a universal consensus as you claim actually existed, you would still have to contend with the brute fact that there is not a similar consensus as to what constitutes hijab.

    The literal meaning of hijab is a concealing, a screening, a cover, a protecting [of something or someone]. It has come to mean the particular head-covering worn by some Muslim women. The contextual information provided by both the Qur’an and Ahadith is not enough to conclude, as you do, that the term is used in a specific way.

    I cannot be bothered to fisk any further Muslim’s text.

  11. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    Speaking of consensus – there is also a consensus that Muslims can buy and sell slave girls and have sex with their slaves at will. Should we allow that to ‘Muslim’? Actually don’t answer that one.

  12. Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    “Great so presumably you’d illustrate your article on the immigrant underclass with a picture of an immigrant mugging/stealing , or your Orthodox Jewish one with a pic of Baruch Goldstein or Orthodox Jews assaulting Palestinian civilians or an article about Muslims with a picture of a terrorist (oh wait in the last case you probably would)!”

    Unless they were directly relevant to the article, I wouldn’t but if so, then sure, why not?

    In this case, a picture of a criminal using the niqab to hide their identity is not unique. There have been many incidences of terrorists and criminals using the niqab as a means to gain access and obscure their identity.

    Otherwise you’re dealing in your usual screeching speculative whataboutery, as usual.

  13. dawood
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:07 AM | Permalink

    “1) As mentioned earlier it isn’t only Salafis who wear niqab”

    No, but only the Salafis of the Ikhwaan and their hidebound Southasian fellow travellers have politicised to the extent that it is now no more than an identity symbol.

  14. Abu Faris
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:10 AM | Permalink

    There have been many incidences of terrorists and criminals using the niqab as a means to gain access and obscure their identity.

    My wife (a non-niqabi, but hijab-wearing woman) reports that the generally held view of niqabi in the Arab world is that the woman in question is either:

    (a) forced to wear a niqab by her insane male family members;

    or,

    (b) is up to something that she should not be up to.

    My wife claims that she only wore niqab once – and that was when she had first met me and she wanted to spy on me in a public place to make sure I was not up to things that I should not have been up to!

  15. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:13 AM | Permalink

    Niqab – a great weapon for spooks. I heard most of the prostitutes in Syria wear niqab.

  16. dawood
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

    Also worn by the male prostitutes who service the maulvis at one of the madraasahs I was doing some research at in Bangladesh, last year.

    I guess it has *some* benefits.

  17. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

    Must have been traumatic to witness that Dawood, then again they say it’s important to keep the Ulema happy.

    Niqab actually produces social ills rather than eradicating them.

  18. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:27 AM | Permalink

    While Abu Wanabe Arab , Abu Faris and Dawoods comments about the depraved underbelly of the Muslim world are useful indications of their lifestyles am not sure what it has to do with the fact that niqab is mustahab at the very least.

  19. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    My wife (a non-niqabi, but hijab-wearing woman) reports that the generally held view of niqabi in the Arab world is that the woman in question is either:

    Only amongst people who have no husn-ud dhunn. And your wife has interviewed the majority of the Arab world to get their opinion has she ?

    And your wife wears hijab? Why does she do that- is it Fard or something?
    Tut tut youll probably be ex-communicated by the Spitoonites for such heresy

  20. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:31 AM | Permalink

    Good indications of the depraved nature of the Salafi mind and the social ills that result from the imposition of their practices.

  21. Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

    “And your wife wears hijab? Why does she do that- is it Fard or something?
    Tut tut youll probably be ex-communicated by the Spitoonites for such heresy”

    Amidst all your “Oh woe is me and the whole Muslim World” flailing, try and get your head around the difference between hijab and niqab. We’re discussing the niqab here.

  22. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

    Niqab is part of Islam –it was worn by the Prophet’s wives the mothers of the believers and is considered at least mustahabb by all of the 4 Sunni schools.

    Abu Faris

    And these are weasel words. Some scholars regard the niqab as mustahabb – not every scholar so thinks. Further, a definition of mustahabb is a recommended form of worship or action. Doing a mustahab activity will be rewarded by Allah but not doing a Mustahab activity will not be considered sinful. E.g. Reading Quran daily.

    You do realise that by agreeing with me that Niqab is at least mustahab (and I follow the opinion that it is mustahab not Fard unlike hijab) you have admitted it is a part of Islam and a recommended act which is rewarded by Allah SWT. Thus directly contradicting Spitoons article claiming it isnt part of Islam!!

    Most mustahab acts have greater benefit/reward (thawab) than mandatory (wajib) activities.

    Note – mustahabb acts are not wajib acts.

    You appear also to not be able to distinguish between mustahabb acts and fardh acts. The latter are obligatory, the former are not obligatory. Fardh is thus synonymous with wajib, not mustahabb as you want.

    Liar. I never said “Most mustahab acts have greater benefit/reward (thawab) than mandatory (wajib) activities.” -you did. You are falsely attributing things to me then refuting them!! Lame Abu Faris Lame.

    I know well that a mustahab act is distinguishable from a Fard and that Fard is synomous with Wajib -though of course the Hanafis make a distinction between Fard and wajib as you well know (chortle)

  23. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    “And your wife wears hijab? Why does she do that- is it Fard or something?
    Tut tut youll probably be ex-communicated by the Spitoonites for such heresy”

    Faisal

    Amidst all your “Oh woe is me and the whole Muslim World” flailing, try and get your head around the difference between hijab and niqab. We’re discussing the niqab here

    Er yes dumbo but Abu Faris mentioned hijab and his wife wearing it.
    Yet your/Ibn khalduns article here claims hijab isnt part of Islam :

    “The fact is the Quran does NOT directly tell women to cover anything except their bosoms. ”

    So who’s right you/Ibn Khaldun or Abu Faris’ wife ?

    Hijab is Fard by consensus. In fact the ruling was kufr on one who denies it is fard. Their is disagreement on niqab- I follow the opinion that its recommended not fard. But its still a noble act done by the mothers of the believers however much you debased people try and debase it.

  24. magnuspie
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM | Permalink

    Niqab is part of Islam –it was worn by the Prophet’s wives the mothers of the believers and is considered at least mustahabb by all of the 4 Sunni schools.

    Firstly, there’s no proof that all 12 of the Prophet’s wives wore the niqab. Some certainly didn’t. And nor do we fully know what the niqab garment actually meant in detail from the few hadeeths that sanction it. The niqab, as we know it as a black garment made of umbrella material, is just one of many modernist and regional and cultural interpretations thereof.

    Didn’t the Prophet (saw) also have 12 wives, one of whom was betrothed as a 5 year old girl and married at nine? Does that mean Muslims like myself should follow all these precedents or only the ones the modernist Islamist schools have latterly deemed noteworthy of emulation?

  25. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:06 PM | Permalink

    1) As mentioned earlier it isn’t only Salafis who wear niqab”

    dawood

    No, but only the Salafis of the Ikhwaan and their hidebound Southasian fellow travellers have politicised to the extent that it is now no more than an identity symbol.

    Yeah those politicised Deobandi/Tablighis -man I get sick of them chatting politics all the time.
    And its usually NON-political groups who wear niqab -salafis and deobandis.
    The females in political groups like HT, MB etc rarely wear it

    Seems a condition of being a pro-Spitoon poster to be absolutely clueless about Islam and the Muslim community and be unable to sustain an argument without contradicting yourself

  26. magnuspie
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:23 PM | Permalink

    Yeah those politicised Deobandi/Tablighis -man I get sick of them chatting politics all the time.

    Yes, they’re wearing them *now*. The Tablighi is as modernist as the Wahaabi school of “Islamic Reformism”. Founded at around the same time the Saudi project was kicking off in the Najd. And thanks to theological traffic between the two, it stands to reason that they share similar interpretations. The import of the niqab being just one.

    Seems a condition of being a pro-Spitoon poster to be absolutely clueless about Islam and the Muslim community and be unable to sustain an argument without contradicting yourself

    You’re clearly just as absolutely clueless about other Muslim communities which reject your “radical” pro-Islamist nonsense too.

  27. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:25 PM | Permalink

    magnuspie

    Firstly, there’s no proof that all 12 of the Prophet’s wore the niqab. Some certainly didn’t. And nor do we fully know what the niqab garment actually meant in detail, from the few hadeeths and sanction it. The niqab is on of many interpretation thereof.

    You say “some certainly didnt”- which ones? Even allowing for that, the fact that some of the blessed mothers of the believers did is admission that niqab is part of Islam something Spitoon try and deny (they are so extreme they deny hijab). And i’ll reiterate again that those considering Niqab Fard is a valid opinion in Sharia I personally follow the opinion its recommended.

    Didn’t the Prophet (saw) also have 12 wives, one of whom was betrothed as a 5 year old girl and married at nine? Does that mean Muslims like myself should follow all these precedents or only the ones the modernist Islamist schools have latterly deemed noteworthy of emulation?

    If you are a Muslim you need to learn to have manners when speaking about the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wasalaam and his wives. You also need to learn your deen from proper scholars since the allowance of more than 4 wives was specially for the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wasalaam . Funny that you dont even know this yet use terms made up by non-Muslim like “Islamists” -says it all about where you learn from. And we are talking of the 4 orthodox Sunni Schools not of political groups.

    As for marrying at a certain age -had the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wasalaam commanded that we would have to. But he didnt. So saying you should marry at such and such age because the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wasalaam did is a stupid as saying all Muslims should die at 63 because he sallAllahu alayhi wasalaam did.

  28. magnuspie
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    As for marrying at a certain age -had the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wasalaam commanded that we would have to. But he didnt. So saying you should marry at such and such age because the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wasalaam did is a stupid as saying all Muslims should die at 63 because he sallAllahu alayhi wasalaam did.

    Well exactly, and remember, you’re the one who said

    “Niqab is part of Islam –it was worn by the Prophet’s wives the mothers of the believers and is considered at least mustahabb by all of the 4 Sunni schools.”

    Nothing about a command to wear a certain black umbrella-material garment that covers the entire body. Unless you’re reading some arbitrary cultural signals that are not Prophetic.

    You’ve just answered your own predicament about wearing or not wearing the niqab – there was no explicit command. It’s my personal/cultural/regional choice against yours.

  29. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:40 PM | Permalink

    magnuspie

    Yes, they’re wearing them *now*.

    Total idiocy- You yourself admitted the Prophets wives may Allh b pleased with them wore them – and all the 4 classical schools have supported wearing niqab

    Happy reading
    http://search.sunnipath.com/search.php?start=0&end=10&q=niqab

    The Tablighi is as modernist as the Wahaabi school of “Islamic Reformism”. Founded at around the same time the Saudi project was kicking off in the Najd.

    Founded by Hanafi ulema who had isnads back to the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wasalaam. How is that “modernist” ? And are you aware that Spitoon are modernist heretics par excellence?

    And thanks to theological traffic between the two, it stands to reason that they share similar interpretations. The import of the niqab being just one.

    What planet are you on? The Deobandis are followers of the Hanafi maddhab and Maturidi aqeeda who also have tariqas in tassawuf. The Wahhabis reject taqlid of the maddhabs, the Maturidi/Ashari aqeeda and tassawuf in toto

    Totally clueless

    You’re clearly just as absolutely clueless about other Muslim communities which reject your “radical” pro-Islamist nonsense too.

    Perhaps you could tell me about them since the Muslims Im talking about (those who follow the 4 schools) represent thevast majority of Muslims on this planet

    And magnuspie you said niqab was a political symbol- you still havent explained how the Tablighis are political

  30. magnuspie
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:47 PM | Permalink

    And magnuspie you said niqab was a political symbol- you still havent explained how the Tablighis are political

    You’re saying that a “Reformist Movement” founded in the hothouse of religious identity politics of India in 1920s/1930s is going to be apolitical in its provenance? That would be both naive and stupid. Besides, aren’t people like you the first to crow that Islam is a “political way of life”?

  31. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

    magnuspie

    Well exactly, and remember, you’re the one who said

    “Niqab is part of Islam –it was worn by the Prophet’s wives the mothers of the believers and is considered at least mustahabb by all of the 4 Sunni schools.”

    Nothing about a command to wear a certain black umbrella-material garment that covers the entire body. Unless you’re reading some arbitrary cultural signals that are not Prophetic.

    You’ve just answered your own predicament about wearing or not wearing the niqab – there was no explicit command. It’s my personal/cultural/regional choice against yours.

    Oh dear- in fact some scholars have said wearing niqab is fard

    “As for wearing niqab (the face veil), this was considered necessary (wajib) by the classical scholars of the Hanafi school, as well as other Sunni schools such as the Shafi`i school. However, this is often not reasonably possible to follow for many people, given their personal, family, or social situation.

    The Transmitted Ruling

    The transmitted position of the Hanafi school is that a woman�s face, though not considered of a woman�s �nakedness� (awrah), is necessary (wajib) to cover because of the fitna involved in not doing so. This mentioned in virtually all its major texts, including the Hashiya of Ibn Abidin, the Hashiya of al-Tahtawi, al-Bahr al-Ra�iq, al-Hidaya, its commentaries, and other texts”
    .
    http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=10&ID=1334&CATE=88

    And before you clueless idiots say “hes agreeing you niqab isnt fard” – I agree totally- but your argument that it isnt part of Islam is baseless.

    Here are some evidences for niqab
    Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Hadith # 282
    Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba (Radhiallaahu Ánha) “Aisha (Radhiallaahu Ánha) used to say: “When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces.

    Narrated Aisha (part of a much longer narration): “…When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja’ (i.e. “Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji’un”) as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja’. (Volume: 5, Book Number: 59, Hadith Number: 462)

    Narrated Aisha: The woman is to bring down her Jilbāb from over her head and [then place it] upon her face. {Bukhari:6:60:282}, {Sunnan Abu Dawud 32:4091}

    Narrated Aisha: The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allaah in ihrām When they came near, each of us would lower her Jilbāb from her head over her face, and when they passed by we would uncover our faces. Sunnan Abu Dawud 1:1833

    Narrated Aisha: Safwaan ibn al-Mu’attal al-Sulami al Dhakwaani was lagging behind the army. She said, “He came to where I had stopped and saw the black shape of a person sleeping. He recognized me when he saw me, because he had seen me before Hijāb was enjoined. I woke up when I heard him saying ‘Inna Lillaahi wa inna ilayhi raaji’oon (verily to Allaah we belong and unto Him is our return),’ and I covered my face with my Jilbāb Sahih Muslim 2:2770

    Narrated‘Aasim al-Ahwal: We used to enter upon Hafsah bint Sirīn who had put her Jilbāb thus and covered her face with it, and we would say to her:

    May Allah have mercy on you. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And as for women past childbearing who do not expect wedlock, it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment” [al-Noor 24:60]. And she would say to us: What comes after that (of the āyah)? We would say: “But to refrain (i.e. not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them”. And so she said: [Referring to, ‘But to refrain is better for them’], “It is to keep the Jilbāb.” Sahih al-Bukhari 3:311:1

    Narrated Ibn ‘Abbās: Allah commanded the believing women, when going out of their homes for some need, to cover their faces from above their heads with their Jilbābs, leaving one eye(or both) to see the path. [21]

    From Asmā’ bint Abi Bakr, that she said, “We are used to cover our faces from the men, and cut our hair before that in Ihrām (for Hajj).[22]

    From Asmā’ bint Abi Bakr, We would cover our faces while we were Muhrim, and while doing that we would be with Asmā’ bint Abi Bakr As-Siddeeq.[23]

    From Ibn Abi Khaythamah, We entered upon Umm Al-Mu’minīn on Yawm At-Tarwayah and we said to her, ‘Oh Mother of the Believers! Here is a woman who refuses to cover her face and she is a Muhrimah (in ihrām). So ‘Aa’ishah lifted her Khimār from her chest, and covered the woman’s face with it.[24]
    Narrated Aisha: “When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their Juyubihinna,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces. Sahih al-Bukhari 60:282:1

    Narrated ‘Aisha: The Apostle of Allah used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized Sahih al-Bukhari 8:368:1

    Narrated Um ‘Atiya: We were ordered the Apostle of Allah to bring out our menstruating women and veiled women in the religious gatherings and invocation of Muslims on the two ‘Eid festivals. These menstruating women were to keep away from their Musalla. A woman asked, “O Allah’s Apostle ‘ What about one who does not have a niqab?” He said, “Let her share the veil of her companion.” Sahih al-Bukhari 8:347:1

    From Anas that the Messenger of Allah said: And if one of the women of Paradise looked at the earth, she would fill the whole space between them the earth and the heaven with light, and would fill whatever is in between them, with perfume, and the veil of her face is better than the whole world and whatever is in it.”Sahih al-Bukhari 8:572:1

    Narrated Thabit ibn Qays : A woman called Umm Khallad came to the Prophet while she was veiled. She was searching for her son who had been killed in the battle. Some of the Companions of the Prophet said to her: You have come here asking for your son while veiling your face? She said: If I am afflicted with the loss of my son, I shall not suffer the loss of my modesty. The Apostle of Allah said: You will get the reward of two martyrs for your son. She asked: Why is that so, oh Prophet of Allah? He replied: Because the people of the Book have killed him.”Sahih al-Bukhari 14:2482:1

    All of a woman is awrah. Whenever she leaves her home Satan reachs by her.”Sunnan Abu Dawud 2:311

    A woman called Umm Khallad came to the Prophet while she was veiled. She was searching for her son who had been killed (in the battle) Some of the Companions of the Prophet said to her: You have come here asking for your son while veiling your face? She said: If I am afflicted with the loss of my son, I shall not suffer the loss of my modesty. The Apostle of Allah said: You will get the reward of two martyrs for your son. She asked: Why is that so, Apostle of Allah? He replied: Because the people of the Book have killed him. (Book Number: 14, Hadith Number: 2482) If she was wrong in her understanding, Muhammad would have corrected her.

  32. magnuspie
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:50 PM | Permalink

    “Total idiocy- You yourself admitted the Prophets wives may Allh b pleased with them wore them – and all the 4 classical schools have supported wearing niqab”

    I have? Wishful thinking old boy.

  33. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    magnuspie

    You’re saying that a “Reformist Movement” founded in the hothouse of religious identity politics of India in 1920s/1930s is going to be apolitical in its provenance?

    Are you seriously suggesting Tablighi are a political group?

    That would be both naive and stupid. Besides, aren’t people like you the first to crow that Islam is a “political way of life”?

    Good grief- the point was to show that niqab is not a political symbol as was claimed since followers of apolitical religious movements wear it

    Sorry you are too stupid to argue with

  34. Muslim
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:56 PM | Permalink

    “Total idiocy- You yourself admitted the Prophets wives may Allah be pleased with them wore them – and all the 4 classical schools have supported wearing niqab”

    magnus pie

    I have? Wishful thinking old boy.

    magnus pie


    Firstly, there’s no proof that all 12 of the Prophet’s wore the niqab. Some certainly didn’t.
    And nor do we fully know what the niqab garment actually meant in detail, from the few hadeeths and sanction it. The niqab is on of many interpretation thereof.

  35. magnuspie
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

    But what of those wives who chose not to? Mary the Copt did not even convert to Islam.

    So from there, do you want to make a similar “classical theological law”, on the basis that at least one wife set the precedent (and that’s all it takes) by choosing not to wear the niqab – which means support for rejecting the niqab?

    On the strength of your argument, which is desperately close to calling all Muslim women who do not wear the niqab as inferior, there is just as strong a case for the niqab not be worn.

  36. Silky Pants
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

    Muslim – saying that something is not clearly stated in the Quran and saying it is not a part of Islam are very different things, a difference you have confused.

    The issue here isn’t whether its Fard, Sunnah, Mubah or supported by theologians or not. This is about the ridiculous attempts by some Muslims to defend the niqab in the face of common sense. Clearly there are many issues with wearing such an item of clothing, why deny that and pretend its everyone else’s fault. I would admire Fatima far more if she just came out and said ‘I believe God wants me to wear it and I will’. Rather than providing pathetic lame excuses which deny the obvious.

  37. Abu Faris
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 5:15 PM | Permalink

    What an extraordinary combination of insults aimed at others’ partners, theological wrangling and stupidity developed by “Muslim”.

    My wife is an Arab, Muslim – the fact that she isn’t some suitably trodden-upon example of your idea of “womanhood” is of some pride to her – and to me.

    I chose not to mention her third attribution for niqabi – that those who wear it are too often on the game.

    Now grow up, smell the coffee and disappear.

  38. Abu Faris
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 5:29 PM | Permalink

    Liar. I never said “Most mustahab acts have greater benefit/reward (thawab) than mandatory (wajib) activities.” -you did. You are falsely attributing things to me then refuting them!!

    I never wrote that you said such things. Consequently, I can hardly be a liar. I wrote the standard definition (which includes the comment that reward follows from most mustahab acts) – exactly what problem do you have with this?!?

    Might I suggest you learn to read?

  39. Abu Faris
    Posted October 1, 2009 at 5:37 PM | Permalink

    and all the 4 classical schools have supported wearing niqab

    Yah, let’s not mention the Shi’a schools of jursiprudence (for example)… after all, they’re not “proper” Muslims, are they, Muslim?

    O obscurantist, sectarian oaf.

  40. fayss
    Posted October 2, 2009 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    faisal,

    you big ugly blob, ur days are numbered!

    just for protection I think, you should wear a niqaab from head to toe, you’d blend in to the crowd as a women cos of your titties!

  41. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted October 4, 2009 at 9:46 PM | Permalink

    How profound Fayss, let me guess are you a graduate of Andy Choudarys School of Shariah? Where do classes take place In his bedroom or his kitchen?

  42. Belle
    Posted October 25, 2009 at 2:38 PM | Permalink

    I am SO sick of hearing men banging on about why women wear what they wear. Is there a woman who wears niqab willing to enter this discussion???

  43. Haifa
    Posted April 27, 2010 at 1:54 AM | Permalink

    Why do you care so much…kind-hearted humanbeing

    She’s free to do whatever…so is clothless people…so..you shut up.

  44. Haifa
    Posted April 27, 2010 at 1:55 AM | Permalink

    I’m one of them, Belle, and guess what i am too sick of you and your kind. : )

  45. Belle
    Posted April 27, 2010 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

    Haifa, cool your temper. I think my request is a reasonable one that is to your benefit. My point is: tell me YOUR point of view! I want to hear what women who are wearing niqab think. Not men talking about women and what they wear.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Categories

  • Archives