More importance !! another voting on BBC : Should the veil be banned?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Makky
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 32
  • Views Views 5K
Ofcourse their going to support its ban. Those women wearing those things over their head are followers of osama and hezb allah!!!


[/sarcasm] :-\
 
does it say anywhere in the qur'an or hadith that a woman must cover her face?
would a woman wearing hijaab be following her religion?
if yes, then you can't fight it on the grounds of religious freedom.
 
snakelegs said:
does it say anywhere in the qur'an or hadith that a woman must cover her face?
would a woman wearing hijaab be following her religion?
if yes, then you can't fight it on the grounds of religious freedom.
Click to expand...
:sl:
in reply 2 ur Q it does not say anywhere in the Qur'an dat u haf 2 wear a veil. the veil was 1st worn by the Prophets wives as it was obligatory upon them 2 wear it. Many women then started 2 copy them and that is how it all started. You dont get any sins if u dont wear it but u can get a lot of rewards 4 wearing it. Hijaab is compulsory upon every Muslim women and not wearing it would be disobeying one of Allah's important commands.
I fink dat its realli stupid 2 support dis ban cos we supposedly have da freedom 2 say wat we want (ie. da pictures of da Prophet [SAW]) but we dont have da freedom 2 wear wat we want. And we're supposed 2 be living in a democratic society. I mean wheres da sense in dat!:?
Wassalam
 
thanks for the answer.
i don't live in UK. my point was only that if it is not required by islam to wear the veil, and a hijaab is perfectly acceptable - they cannot protest the ban on the legal ground that it interferes with their right to practice their religion.
gov't can say it is because of security concerns.
 
snakelegs said:
thanks for the answer.
i don't live in UK. my point was only that if it is not required by islam to wear the veil, and a hijaab is perfectly acceptable - they cannot protest the ban on the legal ground that it interferes with their right to practice their religion.
gov't can say it is because of security concerns.
Click to expand...

:sl:
Yeah i understand wat u mean but it still interferes with the point that are we allowed 2 wear wat we want wen we want. I mean just because sum man at da top feels uncomfortable wid a woman wearin a veil doesnt mean dat u haf 2 ban it in public places. Sum Muslim men feel uncomfortable talkin 2 half naked women but they're not causin arguments (probs cos dey dont have da power!):heated:
wassalam
 
i don't think its a problem of feeling uncomfortable - i think its a valid security concern. it is an effective way of hiding if you are going to commit a crime. a non-muslim could use it too, for that matter.
now the banning of hijaab does come from bigotry in my opinion, and unlike the veil (which is not mandatory) - it does deny people their right to practice their religion.
btw, i didn't vote on the issue.
 
elmorro4lyf said:
:sl:
Sum Muslim men feel uncomfortable talkin 2 half naked women but they're not causin arguments (probs cos dey dont have da power!):heated:
wassalam
Click to expand...
In general, men are not feeling bad when see half naked women. They can very well turn their head to see them better. :-[
 
Tania said:
In general, men are not feeling bad when see half naked women. They can very well turn their head to see them better. :-[
Click to expand...

:sl:
sos sis but i dont know wat u mean.:?
If u mean dat alot of men r happy lukin at women lyk dat den i mujst refrase wat i said. i meant dat a lot of PRACTISIN muslim men feel uncomfortable lukin at half naked women especially on billboards. i feel sorry for dem wen deyre drivin!;D
wassalm
 
snakelegs said:
does it say anywhere in the qur'an or hadith that a woman must cover her face?
would a woman wearing hijaab be following her religion?
if yes, then you can't fight it on the grounds of religious freedom.
Click to expand...

There is some, because great scholars have derived that if there is chance of desire by the face, it is better to cover it.
 
^ As far as I know majority say it is waajib!
 
Tania said:
In general, men are not feeling bad when see half naked women. They can very well turn their head to see them better. :-[
Click to expand...

Thats why women have been ordered to conceal themselves before unknown persons and during their never-ending visits to markets to buy jewellery and make-up articles. The less they expose themselves, the less would be the temptation for the men.

Talking honestly, a women wearing see-through dress has greater chances to invite undue attention from the people, who will consider it their sacred duty to scan the lady head till toe, rather than a veiled and concealed lady, who is not fashionable, doesn't apply tons of makeup on her face and avoids her best becoming the talk of the town.

Sorry, but this happens 2 be a reality :D
 
is waajib the same as fard?
if so, i never knew that! seems that plenty of religious muslim women are content with hijaab...:confused:
 
That can only be explained by a lady or a person having knowledge about fiqh matters. But I do think, there is variety of opinions on the matter. In fiqh, diff opinions are acceptable, depends upon one's own inclination.

In my humble opinion, it just takes a piece of cloth to be used as a veil and loose outer cover( think they call it jilbab) and thats it.
 
Last edited:
snakelegs said:
is waajib the same as fard?
if so, i never knew that! seems that plenty of religious muslim women are content with hijaab...:confused:
Click to expand...

Hi snakelegs!

There is a major difference of opinion regarding the issue. Heaps of scholars said it is compulsory, will still many others said it is not.
 
snakelegs said:
is waajib the same as fard?
if so, i never knew that! seems that plenty of religious muslim women are content with hijaab...:confused:
Click to expand...

yeah...but we can't judge them as a religious muslimah or not.

Posted by sis al muwahiddah...

Ibn Qudâmah, a leading Hanbalî jurist and proponent of covering the face, says the following in al-Mughnî (9/498):

A male witness may see the face of the woman he is to be a witness for…

If a man engages in business with a woman, either buying and selling or entering into a rental agreement, then he has a right to see her face… It is related from Ahmad b. Hanbal that that he disliked his doing so if the woman in question is young, but not if she were old. It is likely that he meant that he disliked it for someone who feared temptation and in cases where it is not necessary for him to transact with her. As for when there is a need and where there is no fear of overt sexual arousal, there is no objection.
Dr. Muhammad b. Sâlih al-Duhaym, the presiding judge at the Layth District Courthouse in Saudi Arabia, is a contemporary scholar who regards covering the face to be obligatory. He issued the following ruling:
If a woman is living in a country, or in a time, or under circumstances where she cannot cover her face and hands – whether the reasons are societal, political, or related to public safety – and if she might face difficulty or might lose out on a greater good, then it is permitted for her to uncover her face and hands.​

Many Hanafî jurists hold the view that a man can look at woman’s face as long as his doing so does not incite sexual desire. If it does incite such desire in him, then he is prohibited from looking at her face. Nevertheless, in cases where there is a compelling need for him to see her face, then he may look at it, even if he feels desire.

The eminent Hanafî scholar, `Alâ al-Dîn al-Samarqandî, writes in Tuhfah al-Fuqahâ’ (3/334):
If there is a necessity, then there is no objection to the man looking at her face, even if he feels desire. This is the case for the judge or the witness. They can look upon her face in the dispensation of justice or when carrying out the function of acting as a witness.

Likewise, he can do so if he is intent on marriage, since the purpose is not to indulge his sexual desires. This is because of what is related from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said to al-Mughîrah b. Shu`bah: “If you would take a look at her, it is better for fostering harmony between you.”​

Scholars of Islamic Law make a distinction between matters that are prohibited for their inherent evil and matters that are prohibited only because they have the potential to lead up to the perpetration of an inherent evil. For instance, murder, fornication, and drug abuse are prohibited in their own right. By contrast, a woman showing her face in public is prohibited – by the scholars who regard it as prohibited – because of the temptation that it might cause and that might lead to the sin of fornication or adultery. The woman is not required to veil her face for the mere sake of covering it.

This is an important distinction in Islamic Law. Things that are prohibited in their own right cannot be permitted except in cases of dire necessity (darûrah). For instance, a person may not drink wine. However, if that person is choking on something and can only find wine to save himself, he may drink it out of necessity. By contrast, things that are prohibited only because they can lead to other unlawful activities are allowed for any valid need (hâjah).

Ibn al-Qayyim explains this principle in I`lâm al-Muwaqqi`în:
Prohibitions regarding the means to wrongdoing are not like things that are prohibited for their own sake. Prohibitions regarding the means to wrongdoing will be lifted for a valid need (hâjah). As for things that are prohibited for their own sake, their prohibition is not lifted except in cases of dire necessity (darûrah).​

Source
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top