-
Authenticity Of Ahadith About Pardah
Assalamu Alaikum
I wanted to ask if all the ahadith mentioning hijaab(other than those mentioning hijaab for azwaaj-e-mutahiraat(R.A)) are weak ? If they’re not weak but akhbar-e-ahad, are they binding upon Muslims?
-
20 Replies
-
Authenticity Of Ahadith About Pardah
updated 3 years, 1 month ago
4 Members
·
20
Replies
-
I’m not sure which narrations you might be referring to. Without proper references we can’t do any investigation and categorize any narration as weak or strong.
For Ghamidi sahab’s detailed explanation on the topic of hijab / parda, please refer to:
What’s binding upon us is transmitted to us in the two sources of religion: the Quran and the sunnah. Narrations do not contain any new laws, but in fact a lot of them explain or apply the principles already contained in those two sources.
-
I mean this one:
عائشہ رضى اللہ تعالى عنہا كہا كرتى تھيں کہ جب يہ
آيت نازل ہوئى :
*”اور اپنے گریبانوں پر اپنی چادریں ڈالے رہیں اور اپنی آرائش(زیب و زینت) کو کسی کے سامنے ظاہر نہ کریں”*
_سورہ نور :31_
تو ان عورتوں نے اپنى نيچے باندھنے والى چادروں كو كناروں سے دو حصوں ميں پھاڑ ليا *اور اس سے اپنے سروں اور چہروں كو ڈھانپ ليا “*.
This is how they translate it into Urdu. I think the English translations must be pretty similar.
Also, there’s a tradition that mentions that Omar (R.A) forbade a slave woman from covering her head. Is it authentic? Because if it is , it would mean that headcover is not compulsory because the verses in Surah Nur don’t differentiate between free and slave women.
-
Peace!
Like I told you previously, the Arabic says اختمرن which means to wear or put on a خمار which, as you know, is a head cover (as Dr. Muhammad Amir Gazdar has said in his book).
However, this report needs research because Aloosi brings the same report for verse 59 of Surah al-Ahzab. I, for one, don’t know whether this is about Surah al-Nur or Surah al-Ahzab.
Regarding reports about Omar forbidding slave-girls wearing a جلباب, I don’t know whether the reports are authentic but the Mufassiroon bring them for Surah al-Ahzab, not Surah al-Nur. According to them, Omar forbade slave-girls wearing a جلباب because its wearing was a sign that the woman is free so that she may not be harassed. However, I feel like these reports are unauthentic because the Munafiqoon did not remain in the era of Omar about which the Mufassiroon bring forth these narrations. Furthermore, the narrations brought forth by the Mufassiroon are usually suspect and have no worth, according to Javed Ahmad Ghamidi.
-
-
You have already stated these narrations in the following thread, and the explanation given by Ashal seems valid.
Discussion 51616 • Reply 51616
Once you understand Ghamidi sahab’s explanation of the topic in the thread referenced in my response above as well as what status narrations hold in understanding religion, I’m not sure what confusion you have in regards to these narrations.
-
Yes I had stated these narrations in another thread, but I wasn’t fully convinced by the explanation. I mean, in a photo attached by one of the members on the thread, the meaning of the verb اختمرن is given as ” she wore or put on a khimar ( on her head) ” . I needed to know if the portion in the bracket is valid according to Arabic linguistics or just added by the translator to kind of fit in the verb into the generally accepted meaning of hijaab today (that head must be covered) .
I also need to watch the video if Ghamidi sahab where he mentions this hadith, so could you please paste the link of that video?
Also, what about the tradition of Omar( R.A). Is it authentic?
Is the book of Dr Amir Ghazdar on hijab available in Urdu or English.
Lastly, thank you so much for your help -
I suggest that you watch the entire series of videos by Ghamidi sahab shared in a response by me above. Once you understand the whole argument, I am sure that things will start making sense. If you still have questions afterwards, please feel free to post them here.
Linguistic analysis of narrations is not the correct way to understand narrations because a big majority of them have been related to us “bil-maana” i.e. not in the exact words to begin with. Besides, narrations must be understood in the context of the Quran not the other way around.
Translation of Gazdar sahab’s book is not published yet. For the Arabic text please refer to:
-
Salam.
I watched the entire series and this hadith is discussed by Hasan sahab and Ghamidi sahab in video no. 12.
Ghamidi sahab says that the veil is to be used for hiding the adornments. But in a later verse it is said that old women can take off their outer coverings on the condition that they don’t show their adornments.
I mean, if it’s not a sin for old women to take off their outer coverings only on the condition that they don’t show their adornments, doesn’t it mean that young women cannot take off their outer coverings even if they aren’t wearing any adornments?
Also, I’m really stuck at this hadith. If khimaar was a covering which women of that era used to cover their heads with, doesn’t the verb اختمرن (khimaar themselves) in the hadith mean “to cover their heads with a covering”?
Is this hadith hasan, sahih mutawaatir or just a single-chain transmission hadith?
Thank you .
-
وعليكم السلام
First of all, there is no verse which asks women to wear an “outer covering” as a part of Allah’s directives except the verse in Surah al-Ahzab and that was for a special circumstance which you are aware of. The verses in Surah al-Nur ask women not to show their ornaments in front of men and, for that purpose, to cover their جيوب (between neck and chest) so as to conceal their ornaments (necklaces etc.).
This specific directive (to cover the ornaments of the جيب) has been explained to be only for young women in the verse you are talking about. Here is how Ghamidi Sahab explains it:
https://www.javedahmedghamidi.org/#!/quran?chapter=24¶graph=27&type=Ghamidi#fn_102
So, the elderly can take off their خمر from their جيوب.
The verb اختمرن means to don a خمار. It is like saying, “he wore a hat.” That doesn’t mean he wore something to cover his head but that he wore what can be called a hat. So, اختمرن means “they (women) put on خمر (plural of خمار)” There were a lot of clothes like خمر of different sizes. For example, رداء، مقنع، ملحفة and جلباب.
Regarding the authenticity of the Hadith, I don’t know. Ahadith are not mutawatir, by definition they are اخبار آحاد. I know of only one طريق and that is in Sunan Abi Dawood and Allama Albani has deemed it Sahih. If you know any other طريق, please let me know. 😄
Please feel free to probe further until you are satisfied.
-
-
I also read in an article that the Egyptian sufi sheikh Ali Gomaa has stated that those women who believe that hijab is not mandatory are infidels. This has disturbed me to the core. Can you please share any videos or articles of Ghamidi sahab where he clarifies how someone becomes an infidel.
Thank you
-
I’m talking about the verse 60 of Surah An-Nur. It says:
As for women past child-bearing, who have no hope of marriage, it is no sin for them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show adornment. But to refrain is better for them. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
If old women are allowed to take of their outer clothing only on the condition that they don’t show their adornment, doesn’t it mean that young women are not allowed to take them off even if they’re not wearing any adornments and that the purpose of the khimaar is to cover something other than the adornments?
-
Peace!
Yes, dear sir, I got which verse you were talking about. I had also attached a link which lead to Ghamidi Sahab’s tafsir or that verse. The issue actually arises from translation. Know this: translations of the Quran (most probably) always have the interpretations of the translators included in them. This is because it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to translate the Quran into English without some interpretation.
Now, the verse in question says that there is no sin if an elderly woman takes off her ثوب, which means a garment or a cloth with which one covers oneself (part or whole). The mufassiroon wondered which ثوب was the verse talking about. Obviously, it could not mean that elderly women were allowed to take off all their clothes. So, they thought it meant the outer clothes:جلباب، ملخفة، رداء, big shawls worn by women over their clothes. Here is where Ghamidi Sahab disagrees. There is only one ثوب discussed previously by the Surah and that is the خمار over the خيب. So, it is only reasonable to say that the ثوب here refers to what the Surah already talks about, which is the خمار over the جيب and that is what elderly women are allowed to forego if they are adorned.
This is what I inferred from his tafsir. Here is the link to it:
https://www.javedahmedghamidi.org/#!/quran?chapter=24¶graph=27&type=Ghamidi#fn_102
Once again, feel free to inquire further until you are satisfied.
-
-
Salaam.
I am here again 😁
I rewatched the entire series on social Sharia:hijab and also response to 23 questions hijab part.
The only question still on my mind is about khimaar and that hadith. Some people say that khimaar means a headcover, so putting on a khimaar( اختمرن)would mean wearing a covering over their heads, right?
I know Qur’an just says to draw this khimaar over their bosoms, but this hadith says that they “khimaared” themselves. If khimaar means a headcover, wouldn’t it imply that those women also covered their heads on hearing this ayat ?
I understand that people here say that we should understand hadith in accordance with the Qur’an, but a lot of people argue that if we want to understand and follow the Qur’an properly, we need to follow it as the Sahaabis understood it. Which means that we should understand and implement this ayat just like Sahabis did, which , from this hadith, could mean that they covered their heads as well.Please reply.
And sorry for bothering you guys with the same topic again and again.
Thank You
-
Please see:
-
Salam Alaikum
Thanks for your reply
Is draping khimaar over their chests compulsory for women even if they are not wearing any adornments?
-
Salam Alaikum
Sorry to bother again,but my question is still about the same hadith
Though the Qur’an mentions only putting the khimar over the bosoms, but the above hadith says that the women” put on a khimar made up of those torn pieces” or “khimaared” themselves with those pieces of clothes and not just covered their bosoms with khimaar.
If I’m not wrong, doesn’t putting on a khimar mean wearing a headcover? Because the hadith isn’t saying that the women just covered their bosoms with khimaar, but they put on the khimaar and as we know , khimar was a headcover.
Though the following hadith:
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:641
is about prayer , it’s somewhat relevant for this query. It states that the prayer of an adult woman isn’t accepted without a khimar, and it is understood to mean that the prayer isn’t accepted without wearing a headcover.
So if in case of this hadith, wearing a khimar means covering the head, why wouldn’t it be the same for the above hadith( related to Surah An-Nur)
The link to Ghamidi sahab’s video above explains Ghamidi sahab’s understanding,but that’s only for the Quranic verse. What about the hadith? I know a similar hadith is mentioned at the beginning of the last video in the pardah (23 questions) series ,but I wasn’t really satisfied with the explanation. Ghamidi Sahab said that the women just did what is mentioned in the verse(i.e. wearing the khimar to hide the adornments of the bosom) but the language of the hadith is different, as it says that women put on a khimar after hearing this verse( which would probably mean that they covered their heads and bosoms with it) and not just wrapped the khimaar over their bosoms.
I’m extremely confused, that’s why I’m asking questions about the same topic again and again
-
السلام عليكم
Let me cross question you to find out where the confusion lies.
Q1) Is the perspicuous order of the Quran not enough? Are we saying that the Quran does not give you the complete picture when it takes on a topic in such detail?
Q2) Let’s assume that the immigrant women did cover their heads too (which they used to do anyways). How would the actions of these women add to the injunctions of God?
Now let me try to address your concerns.
Let’s assume you are wearing a sweater over your shirt whose sleeves you have rolled up. Now the sleeves of both your shirt and your sweater are short. You are wearing a wrist watch and the sleeves are not long enough to cover your wrist watch. I as the host, seeing that the men have the sleeves of their sweaters rolled up, ask all men at the event to bring their sleeves down to cover their wrist watches because wrist watches are not to be displayed in the group photo. Now you, seeing that your sleeves are not long enough to cover your wrist watch, take off your sweater and wear another one whose sleeves are long enough. Does that suddenly mean that I as the host asked you to wear a sweater? Or did I just ask you to cover your wrist watch and the decision to wear a sweater was yours?
So, you see. The Quran asked the women to cover their bosoms with the خمار. Some of them, seeing that theirs were not long enough or adequate enough, just made خمر out of other clothes. Notice how the report only mentions the immigrant women and not the women of the helpers. So, not everyone did what the report mentions. Also, the خمار is an unstitched cloth of certain length which women used to to cover their heads. Like the دو پٹا, it probably doesn’t have to be worn a certain way to be called a خمار. Regarding the report about prayer, I have tried to answer it in the other forum. I hope my responses help. Be sure to let me know if they don’t. 😅 May be I can whip up something else.
-
-
Thank you for your response brother
The argument of those who support the traditional interpretation is that since those women “khimaared themselves” or ‘put on a khimar” , it means that they understood the verse to mean covering head AS WELL AS the bosom. They further argue that since those people lived in the era when the verse was sent down, they must have understood it in the correct manner, hence we should follow their understanding.
Yes, the hadith doesn’t clearly state where this khimaar was put on, and so we assume that it must be the bosoms since that what the Qur’an says, but if we take a look at a few other ahadith, their language suggests that “putting on a khimaar ” means wearing a headcover. So these women, on hearing this verse, put on a headcover and used it to cover their bosoms.
How do we know which one is the correct understanding?
-
السلام علیکم!
Ok. A question to consider: is the Quran not clear that we need to look for its explanation in the actions of others?
Now, how does this event even mean that the people of the time considered the verse to mean that both the bosom and the head are to be covered? All of us agree that women used to cover their heads before this verse. So, they didn’t do anything new. They kept their original practice and also made sure the bosom was covered as per the injunctions of God. Also, the report only tells what the immigrant women did. It does not mention what the helper women did. Once again, even the immigrant women did not do anything new. It’s not like they were not covering their heads and then the verse was revealed and they started covering their heads. No. They were covering their heads but not their bosoms. After the injunction of God, they chose a different and more appropriate cloth so that the bosom too was covered with their cultural head cover.
So, the whole argument rests on a very big and flawed assumption that even the words of the report do not accept. It clearly mentions only the immigrant women and not the helper women. The second point is also flawed. If the people of that time knew the real implication of the verses of the Quran, they wouldn’t have differed on their implication. They would have agreed on their meanings, which they did not do. So, this argument is also flawed.
Regarding your second last paragraph, if you agree that the Quran only asks for the bosom to be covered, how dare we add to God’s words and claim that the head ought to be covered as well?
Regarding your last question, we follow the Quran 😅. What else? There is absolutely no proof that the women of the time understood that the Quran meant for the head to be covered as well, like I’ve tried to show. Even if there was, their understanding is not necessarily the correct one. We still see what the Quran says and follow that.
-
Salam bro
Yes,but if we look at other ahadith, like the one on praying without a khimar I shared in another forum, wearing a khimaar means putting on a headcover, right?
And the hadith in thos forum states that when those women heard this verse, they tore those sheets and “khimaared themselves” with it. Wouldn’t this mean that they put on a headcover?
And thank you for your patience!
-
-
Brother Mumin as far as I understand if you research in fiqh books and read old tafsirs like tafsir Ar Razi you will find different rules of headcovering for women of different classes. I think earlier scholars did not interpret this verse like today’s scholars do, because for them to miss the part of the verse, ” all believing women” all at one go is difficult for me to digest. Covering of head was a tradition that was abolished only a few 100 yrs from now hence you see so many reports of veiled women. My humble opinion is that these women veiled themselves because of a worldwide custom and not because of the Qur’an, if headcovering was mandatory then why would Allah leave it on the assumption of the reader and not explicate Himself like he did in the case of juyyub?
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
