10 somali guys simping for madow girl

[نور]

قال شيخ الإسلام في الفتاوى: قوله قل لأزواجك وبناتك ونساء المؤمنين يدنين عليهن من جلابيبهن} الآية، دليلٌ على أن الحجاب إنما أمر به الحرائر دون الإماء. لأنه خص أزواجه وبناته، ولم يقل وما ملكت يمينك وإمائك وإماء أزواجك وبناتك. ثم قال: {ونساء المؤمنين}. والإماء لم يدخلن في نساء المؤمنين، كما لم يدخلن في قوله {نسائهن ما ملكت أيمانهن} حتى عطف عليه في آيتي النور والأحزاب....إلى أن قال: فهذا مع ما في الصحيح من أنه لما اصطفى صفية بنت حيى، وقالوا: إن حَجّبها فهي من أمهات المؤمنين، وإلا فهي مما ملكت يمينه، دَلّ على أن الحجاب كان مُختصّاً بالحرائر. وفي الحديث دليلٌ على أن أموّة المؤمنين لأزواجه دون سراريه
​

 

[Angelina]

قال شيخ الإسلام في الفتاوى: قوله قل لأزواجك وبناتك ونساء المؤمنين يدنين عليهن من جلابيبهن} الآية، دليلٌ على أن الحجاب إنما أمر به الحرائر دون الإماء. لأنه خص أزواجه وبناته، ولم يقل وما ملكت يمينك وإمائك وإماء أزواجك وبناتك. ثم قال: {ونساء المؤمنين}. والإماء لم يدخلن في نساء المؤمنين، كما لم يدخلن في قوله {نسائهن ما ملكت أيمانهن} حتى عطف عليه في آيتي النور والأحزاب....إلى أن قال: فهذا مع ما في الصحيح من أنه لما اصطفى صفية بنت حيى، وقالوا: إن حَجّبها فهي من أمهات المؤمنين، وإلا فهي مما ملكت يمينه، دَلّ على أن الحجاب كان مُختصّاً بالحرائر. وفي الحديث دليلٌ على أن أموّة المؤمنين لأزواجه دون سراريه
​

If a Muslim slave woman didn’t want to be harassed and have men stare at her beauty does it means it’s wrong for her to wear hijab?

Why aren’t slave women protected from harassment? Please answer this question.

 

[نور]

It’s a logical question. If Muslim women are required to wear hijab to escape harassment, do you believe that it’s okay for slave girls to be harassed. It’s a simple yes or no question.

It isn’t stupid.

We wear hijab to avoid harassment……what about slave girls. Very simply point.

Also, is hijab for modesty or social status? I don’t think you realize that with your narrative you undermine the point of hijab. What makes my beauty more than a slave girl? Is a slave girl less of a fitnah even though she’s a biological woman?

What's the narrative I'm pushing that undermines the point of hijab? I think you are not even following the discussion.

I was just arguing that the awrah of slave women in Islam is like that of women according to Islam, which you guys have problem with

For me as Shafi'i said: اذا صح الحديث فهو مذهبي. If the hadith is authentic it's my madhab and religion I don't ask why

You’re not a Hadith scholar as well.

Well I'm not the one weakening reports and I don't claim to be hadith scholar

Islamqa literally make it clear that there is nothing in the Quran and Sunnah to suggest that slave women shouldn’t wear a hijab. It was custom.

Islamqa is wrong the ahadith I brought are enough to show that there is evidence for this

In other words, this report describes an incident in which Umar punished a woman for wearing a disguise in order to mislead people about her true identity. It was not her modesty that upset him.

And what's the outfit that makes others assume she was free? HIJAB.

 

[نور]

If a Muslim slave woman didn’t want to be harassed and have men stare at her beauty does it means it’s wrong for her to wear hijab?

Why aren’t slave women protected from harassment? Please answer this question.

I don't know

 

[Angelina]

I don't know

How is hijab protecting the modesty of society if you’re allowed to see topless women?

Are women fitnah based on their social class? I thought the beauty of women was fitnah?

 

[نور]

How is hijab protecting the modesty of society if you’re allowed to see topless women?

Are women fitnah based on their social class? I thought the beauty of women was fitnah?

I don't know

What I know is that the awrah of slave women in Islam is like that of men

 

[Angelina]

I don't know

What I know is that the awrah of slave women in Islam is like that of men

So basically you don’t know why women wear hijab.

Hijab clearly isn’t about protecting women’s modesty and women aren’t fitnah.

Why is my beauty a fitnah and not a slave women who could be 5x better looking?

 

[Angelina]

What's the narrative I'm pushing that undermines the point of hijab? I think you are not even following the discussion.

It does because now the hijab isn’t about modesty nor is it about helping men lower their gaze. How is my hair more of a fitnah than the breast of a slave women? Are women fitnah based on men’s sexual desire of the fact that they’re free?

I was just arguing that the awrah of slave women in Islam is like that of women according to Islam, which you guys have problem with

For me as Shafi'i said: اذا صح الحديث فهو مذهبي. If the hadith is authentic it's my madhab and religion I don't ask why

That’s great but then you can’t have contradictions. The Quraan says tell the believing woman to cover up as a protection from molesters. Why aren’t slave women protected?

Can you see the can of worms you’ve opened.

Well I'm not the one weakening reports and I don't claim to be hadith scholar

Islamqa is wrong the ahadith I brought are enough to show that there is evidence for this

It isn’t enough because you it can be interpreted to mean that she’s now officially the wife of the prophet making her distinct from other free women. Free Muslim women don’t have to wear Niqab.

And what's the outfit that makes others assume she was free? HIJAB.

And according to Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Fiqh:

وَقَال الْحَنَابِلَةُ إِنَّ عَوْرَتَهَا كَعَوْرَةِ الْحُرَّةِ لاَ يَجُوزُ أَنْ يَنْظُرَ مِنْهَا إِلاَّ مَا يَجُوزُ النَّظَرُ إِلَيْهِ مِنَ الْحُرَّةِ
The Hanbali scholars said the nakedness of a maidservant is like the nakedness of a free woman. It is not permissible to look at her except with what is permissible to see in regards to a free woman.
Source: al-Mawsū’at al-Fiqhīyah al-Kuwaytīyah 31/49

 

[نور]

It isn’t enough because you it can be interpreted to mean that she’s now officially the wife of the prophet making her distinct from other free women. Free Muslim women don’t have to wear Niqab.

That's not what the report says though. The Sahaba clearly used the hijab as a way to distinguish if Safiyya was a free wife of the prophet scw or his concubine. She was a slave and no part of the free Muslim women to be confused with them.

Is the Hijab in the hadith niqab? Who said free Muslim women are not required to wear hijab?

And according to Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Fiqh:

the mu'tamad of the hanbali madhab is that the awrah of the slave women is between the navel and the knee see Al Bahuti's rawda Al Murbi kitab of salah

عورة رجل ومن بلغ عشرا وأمة وأم ولد ومكاتبه ومدبرة ومعتق بعضها وحرة مميزة ومراهقة من السرة إلى الركبة وليسا من العورة وابن سبع إلى عشرة الفرجان وكل الحرة البالغة عورة إلا وجهها فليس عورة في الصلاة
​

ص73 - كتاب الروض المربع شرح زاد المستقنع ط المؤيد والرسالة - باب شروط الصلاة - المكتبة الشاملة

ص73 - كتاب الروض المربع شرح زاد المستقنع ط المؤيد والرسالة - باب شروط الصلاة - المكتبة الشاملة

shamela.ws

Other views in the madhab exist but this is the relied upon view

 

[World]

You are derailing the discussion with your stupid provocative way of asking

On His way from Khaybat to Medina the prophet scw took one of the Jews girl's who was a prisoner of war so the sahaba asked themselves if this new girl will be the prophets wife or just a concubine, one of the clues that they will recognise if Safiya was a concubine or the Prophet's wife was that if he veils her he freed her and she is his wife and if not she was to be his concubine



What do we learn from this straightforward hadith in the sahihayn? We learn that slave women do not wear hijab and are not required to do so

It seems we’re going in circles as you do not understand and keep ignoring what I’ve stated. I’ll try to explain in plain English, but I won’t continue anymore. The Hadith says that the wives of the Prophet (saw) will have a hijab, which is what the Quran says:

And when ye ask (the Prophet’s wives) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen(hijab): that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs.
Qur’an 33:53

They were commanded to have a hijab, and this is specifically for the wives of the Prophet(saw).

As for other Muslim women:
O Prophet! Tell your wives, your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their jilbābs (cloaks) over their bodies. That is better so that they should be known as respectable women and not be harassed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [33:59]

Ibn Taymiyyah stated in Al-Fatāwā (15/447): “The verse about the jilbāb refers to the outer garment that is worn when leaving the home. And the verse about the hijāb (being screened) refers to speaking [to the women] while in the homes.”

Allah says that women of the believers, along with the daughters and wives of the Prophet(saw) have to draw jilbabs over their bodies. For some reason, you are equating the hadith (hijab for the wives of the Prophet saw), to the jilbaab, and saying the former is proof that slave women who are believers don’t have cover their bodies(jilbaab).

The Quran also says:
And tell the believing women to.. And let them draw their khimārs over their heads, shoulders and bosoms (juyūb) [24:31]

No distinction between slave, free woman, mother of the believes, simply believing women have to have a khimar.

Thus: All believing women have to observe the khimar, and the jilbaab, whereas the wives of the Prophet (saw) have to have a screen(hijab) in their homes. It’s a form of respecting the Prophet’s private life and sanctifying his wives. And, it doesn’t actually represent a form of clothing, rather it is a physical barrier that separates such as a wall, or a curtain. The hadith you quoted is simply reiterating that point, that specifically the wives of the Prophet (saw) will have a screen(hijab) in their homes. So what relevance does that have to the jilbaab and the khimar which is commanded for all believing women?

The Last part obviously isn't included in the hadith. This is the hadith:

رأى عمرُ أمةً عليْها جِلبابٌ فقال : عَتَقْتِ ؟ قالتْ : لا ، قال ضَعِيهِ عن رَأْسِكِ ، إِنَّما الجِلْبابُ على الحَرَائِرِ ، فَتَلَكَّأَتْ فقامَ إليها بِالدُّرَّةِ ، فضربَ رأسَها حتى ألقَتْهُ​

Omar saw a slave girl wearing a jilbab and said: “Have you been freed?” She said: “No.” He said: “Take it off your head, for the jilbab is only for free women.” She hesitated, so he went to her with a whip and hit her on the head until she dropped it.

الدرر السنية - الموسوعة الحديثية - شروح الأحاديث

dorar.net

This is not the same hadith that I quoted, but either way it’s another wrong fabricated barbaric hadith.

Hitting the head with a whip repeatedly? So potentially permanent brain damage, damage to senses, mental impairment, skull fracture? Such a punishment in and of itself is haram for any crime, let alone Muslim woman following their religious obligations.

 

[نور]

It seems we’re going in circles as you do not understand and keep ignoring what I’ve stated. I’ll try to explain in plain English, but I won’t continue anymore. The Hadith says that the wives of the Prophet (saw) will have a hijab, which is what the Quran says:

And when ye ask (the Prophet’s wives) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen(hijab): that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs.
Qur’an 33:53

They were commanded to have a hijab, and this is specifically for the wives of the Prophet(saw).

As for other Muslim women:
O Prophet! Tell your wives, your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their jilbābs (cloaks) over their bodies. That is better so that they should be known as respectable women and not be harassed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [33:59]

Ibn Taymiyyah stated in Al-Fatāwā (15/447): “The verse about the jilbāb refers to the outer garment that is worn when leaving the home. And the verse about the hijāb (being screened) refers to speaking [to the women] while in the homes.”

Allah says that women of the believers, along with the daughters and wives of the Prophet(saw) have to draw jilbabs over their bodies. For some reason, you are equating the hadith (hijab for the wives of the Prophet saw), to the jilbaab, and saying the former is proof that slave women who are believers don’t have cover their bodies(jilbaab).

The Quran also says:
And tell the believing women to.. And let them draw their khimārs over their heads, shoulders and bosoms (juyūb) [24:31]

No distinction between slave, free woman, mother of the believes, simply believing women have to have a khimar.

Thus: All believing women have to observe the khimar, and the jilbaab, whereas the wives of the Prophet (saw) have to have a screen(hijab) in their homes. It’s a form of respecting the Prophet’s private life and sanctifying his wives. And, it doesn’t actually represent a form of clothing. The hadith you quoted is simply reiterating that point, that specifically the wives of the Prophet (saw) will have a screen(hijab) in their homes. So what relevance does that have to the jilbaab and the khimar which is commanded for all believing women?

Al Qurtubi said in his tafsir of the ayah of hijab

قال القرطبي: التاسعة: في هذه الآية دليل على أن الله تعالى أذن في مسألتهن من وراء حجاب، في حاجة تعرض، أو مسألة يُستفتين فيها، ويدخل في ذلك جميع النساء بالمعنى، وبما تضمنته أصول الشريعة، من أن المرأة كلها عورة، بدنها وصوتها، كما تقدم، فلا يجوز كشف ذلك إلا لحاجة كالشهادة عليها، أو داء يكون ببدنها، أو سؤالها عما يعرض وتعين عندها
​

The ninth: In this verse is evidence that God Almighty has permitted asking them from behind a veil, in the event of a need that arises, or a matter about which they are being asked a fatwa, and this includes all women in meaning, and in accordance with what the principles of the Shari’ah include, that the woman is all ‘awrah, her body and her voice, as mentioned above, so it is not permissible to reveal that

The scholars understood this ayah like that and that's why the hanabila, Shafi'iya and some of the malikiya consider the face of the Muslim women awrah and prohibit them from revealing it to non mahram

But according to your corrupt manhaj all this doesn't matter, what you like is authentic and what you don't is rubbish

The Ibn Taymiyyah your using to distinguish between Hijab and Jilbab and others understands this hadith exactly like me or I understand like him

This is not the same hadith that I quoted, but either way it’s another wrong fabricated barbaric hadith.

How is it fabricated? Can you explain?

Hitting the head with a whip repeatedly? So potentially permanent brain damage, damage to senses, mental impairment, skull fracture? Such a punishment in and of itself is haram for any crime, let alone Muslim woman following their religious obligations.

So the reason why the hadith is fabricated is because of this beating by omar and not problems with it's isnad and how the narrations are weakened in the field of hadith... understood.

As I said you have corrupt manhaj and are following your whims

 

[نور]

Hitting the head with a whip repeatedly? So potentially permanent brain damage, damage to senses, mental impairment, skull fracture? Such a punishment in and of itself is haram

@World Are these ayats barbaric

وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ
​

I mean cutting the hand can cause other damages and even death, such punishment should in and itself be haram, right?

 

[World]

So the reason why the hadith is fabricated is because of this beating by omar and not problems with it's isnad and how the narrations are weakened in the field of hadith... understood.

As I said you have corrupt manhaj and are following your whims

Do you believe that a husband can whip his wife on the head? Is that why you support this hadith?

 

[نور]

Do you believe that a husband can whip his wife on the head? Is that why you support this hadith?

 

[World]

@World Are these ayats barbaric

وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ
​

I mean cutting the hand can cause other damages and even death, such punishment should in and itself be haram, right?

Huh… you’re grasping at straws here dude.

Al-Nawawi said: “The scholars said: it is forbidden to strike the face because it is soft and all of a person's beauty and most of his senses are located there. If the face is hit, there is the fear that all or some of them may be destroyed or disfigured. Any defect in the face is a terrible thing because it is so prominent and obvious, and usually the person who is hit in the face will not be spared some disfigurement.” (al-Fath, 5/216).

So the hikmah of why hitting the face is haram is because most of their senses are there, and there is fear it may be permanent disfigurement. Hitting the head can lead to permanent brain damage, damage to senses, mental impairment, skull fracture as I’ve stated. Animals themselves are protected from this. This prohibition even extends towards an aggressor, an enemy who you are fighting in battle.

I see your intentions quite clearly, ever since you defended the husband that burned his house with his pregnant wife and step children inside. Probably you will make up another ruling that it’s fine to whip the head except the face or something and that a husband has the right to whip his wife’s head.

 

[Angelina]

Huh… you’re grasping at straws here dude.

Al-Nawawi said: “The scholars said: it is forbidden to strike the face because it is soft and all of a person's beauty and most of his senses are located there. If the face is hit, there is the fear that all or some of them may be destroyed or disfigured. Any defect in the face is a terrible thing because it is so prominent and obvious, and usually the person who is hit in the face will not be spared some disfigurement.” (al-Fath, 5/216).

So the hikmah of why hitting the face is haram is because most of their senses are there, and there is fear it may be permanent disfigurement. Hitting the head can lead to permanent brain damage, damage to senses, mental impairment, skull fracture as I’ve stated. Animals themselves are protected from this. This prohibition even extends towards an aggressor, an enemy who you are fighting in battle.

I see your intentions quite clearly, ever since you defended the husband that burned his house with his pregnant wife and step children inside. Probably you will make up another ruling that it’s fine to whip the head except the face or something and that a husband has the right to whip his wife’s head.

He picks and chooses the deen and this is why his views of slave women not wearing hijab is senseless.

He wasn’t even able to understand or reply to basic questions like why do women wear hijab then? To protect their beauty or for status?

If he replies, he knows he’ll contradict himself.

Another contradiction:

One minute it’s haram to beat people on the head, the next minute it’s halal to do so when it comes to a woman wanting to be modest.

Yet at the same time, he is the same type of man who will say modesty for women is their fitrah and only disgusting women would strip, but in the same breath he believes a woman should be beat for trying to be modest. Woman are disgusting for stripping but you can also beat them for wanting to keep themselves safe.

At this point, to believe this framework one must be brain dead. Because you cannot tell me hijab and modesty is my fitrah if other women who are human like myself can be beat for wearing it.

Also, this is the exact same punishment that the Assyrians used to dish out for slave women who wore the hijab. They used to beat these women on the head.

So in order to believe their narrative we need to:

1. Suspend any form of morality
2. Deny that hijab is worn for modesty reasons
3. Yet at the same time tell Muslim women if they don’t wear hijab they’re a fitnah for men.
4. Yet at the same time believe the breast of a slave woman isn’t fitnah
5. Believe that modesty is fitrah but at the same time believe that some classes of men can be beat for wanting to be modest.
6. Pretend we have no knowledge of historical practices that were happening around the same time.

There is a reason why modern scholars never touch on this. Because all of their narrative with regards to the importance of hijab falls apart. One cannot morally, logically and the list continues enforce hijab with that framework.

 

[Angelina]

Al Qurtubi said in his tafsir of the ayah of hijab

قال القرطبي: التاسعة: في هذه الآية دليل على أن الله تعالى أذن في مسألتهن من وراء حجاب، في حاجة تعرض، أو مسألة يُستفتين فيها، ويدخل في ذلك جميع النساء بالمعنى، وبما تضمنته أصول الشريعة، من أن المرأة كلها عورة، بدنها وصوتها، كما تقدم، فلا يجوز كشف ذلك إلا لحاجة كالشهادة عليها، أو داء يكون ببدنها، أو سؤالها عما يعرض وتعين عندها
​

The ninth: In this verse is evidence that God Almighty has permitted asking them from behind a veil, in the event of a need that arises, or a matter about which they are being asked a fatwa, and this includes all women in meaning, and in accordance with what the principles of the Shari’ah include, that the woman is all ‘awrah, her body and her voice, as mentioned above, so it is not permissible to reveal that

The scholars understood this ayah like that and that's why the hanabila, Shafi'iya and some of the malikiya consider the face of the Muslim women awrah and prohibit them from revealing it to non mahram

But according to your corrupt manhaj all this doesn't matter, what you like is authentic and what you don't is rubbish

The Ibn Taymiyyah your using to distinguish between Hijab and Jilbab and others understands this hadith exactly like me or I understand like him



How is it fabricated? Can you explain?


So the reason why the hadith is fabricated is because of this beating by omar and not problems with it's isnad and how the narrations are weakened in the field of hadith... understood.

As I said you have corrupt manhaj and are following your whims

Most scholars do not believe a woman’s voice is awrah. That’s a very minority opinion. How did female Sahabis ask questions?

The thing is, your sources are all over the place and you can’t even answer basic questions like ‘Why do women wear hijab’.

Why do you men say men are weak when it comes to women’s beauty but you allow some women to walk around with their breasts out?

When you can answer these simple questions, that is when you can be taken seriously but the fact of the matter is that you can’t which is why even scholars who do share your views contradict themselves. They say that in times of fitnah slave women Must cover themselves. They can’t keep up with the opinion you believe in because they know it will cause corruption in society.