Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet (sallalahu allahi wa salaam) brought Fatimah a slave which he donated to her. Fatimah wore a garment which, when she covered her head, did not reach her feet, and when she covered her feet by it, that garment did not reach her head. When the Prophet (sallalahu allahi wa salaam) saw her struggle, he said: There is no harm to you: Here is only your father and slave. (Hadith no. 4 Sunan Abu Dawud Book 32, Number 4094) . Fatimah R.A did not have to cover her feet or her head (and we know the head is an obligation of khimar to cover) so obviously since this is an issue and feet and head are mentioned in the same instance as things that away from non-maharam men could bring harm, the feet are part of the hard awrah as much as the head (hair, neck, ears, and in some opinions, face) is. This hadith does not make it clear if covering the feet was necessary for salat (prayer) but it does seem to say that there would be harm in the action if a woman failed to cover her feet in front of non-maharam men.
Although often taken as strong Islamic evidence that the face was never and obligation to be covered by those who fight niqab as being mustahaab or wajib/fard this hadith is popularily quoted on hijab blogs that support modest dressing but not niqab or jilbab:
Narated By 'Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin : Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (sallalahu allahi wa salaam) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (sallalahu allahi wa salaam) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands. (Abu Dawud, Book 027, Hadith Number 4092). It is unfortunatley not classed as sahih (authentic) because the chain of narration cannot be directly linked to Aisha R.A who it is attributed to.
Narrated by Abu Dawud it is a mursal narration at the level of hasan which means it may be considered but not leaned upon for any fatwa which is why it is consequently quite useless in an arguement against niqab---or using it prove that the feet must be covered but that the hands might show. But if it were really from Aisha R.A it would prove that the feet had to be covered and that for women other than the Prophet's wives RA it was merely halal, rather than mustahaab. I am just explaining the importance of this hadith not be sahih so no one tries to bring it up in debate to prove something. This hadith actually is too weak to be considered deciding proof. Or believe me, I'd use it, he he he. My family are anti-niqab and I am anti-sock as often as possible in my own naffs.
The hanafi madhab though is of the opinion that the feet may show so it is a valid opinion. Their rulings comes from the following sources:
i) If the establishment of the nakedness is by the saying of Allah, the Exalted, (from the Qu'ran, translated), "And let them not show their beauty, except that of it which is apparent," then the foot is not customarily a location of beauty (it may be for a minority, but regulations are set according to the general rule), and thus Allah, the Exalted, has said, (from the Qu'ran, translated), "And let them not strike their feet in order to make known that adornment which they are hiding," i.e. the ringing of anklets, and this conveys that the feet themselves are of the beauty which is apparent. This is fortified by the fact that the Mother of the Believers, `A'ishah, said, commenting on the verse, (translated), "And let them not show their beauty except that of it which is apparent", "the toe-ring, a silver ring which is [placed] on the toes." [Narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim, as quoted by Ibn Taymiyyah in Hijab al-Mar'ah , p. 17.]
ii) If the establishment is by the Prophet's saying, "The woman is to be covered," along with it being established that some of her body is excluded due to hardship of [avoiding] exposure, then, by analogy, it should necessitate that the feet also be excluded, due to the corroboration of hardship. This is because she would be put to hardship by her foot showing when she walked barefooted or with shoes, for she may not always find khuffs or socks with which to cover them. Along with this, desire is not aroused by looking at the foot such as is aroused by looking at the face, and so if the face is not `awrah, in spite of the plentiful arousal of desire, then the foot is more appropriate to remain uncovered in view of the hardship associated with covering it. [See Fath al-Qadir : al-Hidayah with its commentaries, vol. I, p.225, and al-Bunayah , vol. II, p.63.]
Some of these scholars voiced that the feet are not nakedness in that she is not required to cover them, but they are nakedness for the purposes of looking and touching, i.e. it is not permissible for strange men to look at or touch her feet.
But in the following sahih hadith, where men were clearly cursed and condemned to hellfire for dragging their garments on the ground in arrogance (showing off their wealth by a wanton display of how much fabric they could afford) women were allowed what men were nor ONLY in order to COVER THEIR FEET.
Abdullah, son of Umar bin Khattab reported that Allah's Messenger sallalahu alahi wa salaam said: "On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will not look upon the man who trails along his garment in pride." There upon Umm Salamah (a woman of the Sahaba, may Allah be pleased with her) asked, "What should women do with their garments?" The Prophet sallalahu alahi wa salaam said: "They should lower their garments a hand span," (half their shins down). Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her) further said, "Women's feet would still be uncovered." Allah's Messenger sallalhu alahi wa salaam replied: "Let them lower them a forearm's length, but not longer." (At-Tirmidhi)
This states that yet again, as in the case of Fatimah where her modest garment (similiar to an overhead abaya) did not quite hit the foot, that a woman's foot was to be covered when she left the home, to the extent that an exception to a rule was made ONLY for the purpose of covering her feet in front of non-maharam men in public. All of the madhabs are of the same opinion that the feet should be covered when in front of non-maharam men except for hanafi, because of the Prophet's (sallalahu alahi wa salaam) advice to Fatimah. Him saying that there was no harm in her feet showing in front of maharam men is taken to mean that the HARM AND THE WORRY is in the feet being exposed in the presence of non-maharam men, and this is emphasized by the allowance made for the Muslimah's clothing to contain more fabric than a man's garment even though women are just as subject to flaunting their wealth and social status as men are. An exception was made for their modesty, and that exception was made so that the feet, which are harmful to be seen by non-maharam men, could be covered. Ibn `Abidin reported this as one of the authentic views in Radd al-Muhtar. It may be noted that Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah, the Hanbali, also favored this opinion. He says,"And similar [is the case with] the foot. It is permissible for her to show it [in salah] according to Abu Hanifah, and [this] is the stronger [position], for `A'ishah considered it of the apparent beauty. . . . . So, this is an evidence that women used to show their feet initially, just as they used to show their faces and hands . . . . for they used not to walk in khuffs or shoes. [Moreover], to cover these in [salah] poses a great hardship, and Umm Salamah said, 'A woman should pray in an ample garment which covers the tops of her feet,' and so when she makes sajdah, the bottoms of her feet may show." [ Hijab al-Mara'ah wa-Libasuha fi al-Salah , pp. 17-18].
SHOULD ONE WEAR SOCKS? HOW DID THE SAHABIYIAT COVER THEIR FEET?
Not every one of the Sahabiyiat wore khuffs (leather shoes/slippers) or socks all the time or had the ability to afford them so those who say that the wearing of socks is wajib/fard are making legislation where Allah subhanhu wa ta'ala gave none to His Messenger sallalahu alahi wa salaam. If one is to examine the evidence FOR covering the feet we see no actual mention of the women of the sahabiyiat wearing khuffs or socks as part of their hijab. What we DO SEE from the evidences for covering the feet, is that the overgarment (jilbab) was used to cover the feet. The Prophet sallalahu alahi wa salaam said (of a woman's public clothing, which was the jilbab): "They should lower their garments a hand span," (half their shins down). Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her) further said, "Women's feet would still be uncovered." Allah's Messenger sallalhu alahi wa salaam replied: "Let them lower them a forearm's length, but not longer." (At-Tirmidhi). And.. Fatimah wore a garment which, when she covered her head, did not reach her feet, and when she covered her feet by it, that garment did not reach her head. When the Prophet (sallalahu allahi wa salaam) saw her struggle, he said: There is no harm to you: Here is only your father and slave. (Hadith no. 4 Sunan Abu Dawud Book 32, Number 4094). So both Umm Salamah and Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with them) covered their feet in most circumstances with their jilbab.
Since Umm Salamah's feet did show when she was in sajood, the same way a woman who is a niqab might have her face exposed during salat, there is no actual way to say that a foot may never show by accident, by what is "apparent of" as Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) her notes that "And let them not show their beauty except that of it which is apparent", "the toe-ring, a silver ring which is [placed] on the toes." [Narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim, as quoted by Ibn Taymiyyah in Hijab al-Mar'ah , p. 17.]ii the foot must be covered by the jilbab. If it peeks out when walking for a slight second, it is showing by what is necessary to expose but should not be left exposed BY the garment for long periods of time. When one is not moving, none of the foot should be seen. If the garment is too short for this, then socks must be worn, covering the feet must be part of the jilbab. This is what was done by the Sahabiyat most sincerly.
And Allah subhanhu wa ta'ala and His Messenger knows best.
No comments:
Post a Comment