Imām Muĥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ţabarī [224-310 AH / 839-923 CE] records in his Tafsīr:
Narrated from Ibn Ábbās regarding, ‘and not to reveal their adornment except to their own husbands’ until His saying, ‘women’s nakedness’, he said:
“The adornment that she reveals to these are her earrings, her necklace and her bangles. As for her anklets, her armlets, her upper chest and her hair, then she does not reveal this except to her husband.”
Abū Bakr Aĥmad ibn Álī al-Jaşşāş al-Rāzī al-Ĥanafī [305-370 AH / 917-981 CE] records in his Tafsīr:
“Narrated from Ĥasan [al-Başrī] regarding a woman who removes her Khimār in the presence of her brother that he said, ‘By Allāh, she cannot do that.’”
He also records:
“Narrated from Ţāwus that he disliked to look at the hair of his daughter and his sister.”
Also:
“Narrated from Shaábī that he disliked that a man look at the hair of his daughter and sister.”
Thus it is established that there were those among the Salaf who were of the opinion that a woman should not reveal her hair in front of her Maĥrams and that men should not look at the hair of the women who are their Maĥrams.
Will people now accuse these great ones of such?
Whilst it is known that the hair of a woman is not her Áwrah according to all four Madh’habs of Ahl al-Sunnah, however even then some scholars have mentioned it is better for a woman to wear a thin Khimār in the presence of her Maĥrams.
Imām Sayyid Muĥammad Amīn Ibn Áābidīn al-Ĥanafī al-Shāmī [1198-1252 AH / 1784-1836 CE] writes in Radd al-Muĥtār, quoting Qunyah al-Munyah:
“It is best for her to wear a thin Khimār, that describes what is under it, in the presence of her Maĥrams.”
This is also quoted in Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah:
The original quote from Qunyah al-Munyah by Imām Najmuddīn Mukhtār ibn Muĥammad al-Zāhidī al-Ĥanafī [d. 658 AH / 1260 CE]:
Ĥakīm al-Ummah Muftī Aĥmad Yār Khān al-Ĥanafī al-Naýīmī [d. 1391 AH / 1971 CE] writes in his Tafsīr:
“There is modesty and concealment with one’s mother, daughter etc; to see other parts of their body besides their faces, hands and feet is not appropriate.”
Therefore it can be observed that though the scholars did not consider it obligatory for a woman to cover her head in the presence of her Maĥrams, however they still considered it better to do and more appropriate.
To label the practice of modesty found in Muslim culture as being misogynistic etc is a severely ignorant thing to do and does not take into account the spirit of modesty and concealment encouraged in the religion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many Muslims incorrectly assume slavery is not a "good" thing. It is, and if it was not, then Allāh would not have permitted it, and His Beloved Rasūl ﷺ would not have engaged in it.
They erroneously assume that because freeing one's own slaves can be rewarded, that this somehow means slavery as a whole is evil and ought to be abolished.
Firstly, not all instances of freeing slaves are rewarded, it is only rewarded if done sincerely for the Pleasure of Allāh, otherwise if a person frees a thousand of his slaves without this sincere intention, then though it is valid, there is no reward.
Moreover, if a kāfir does so, there is no reward for him, regardless of his intention.
Secondly, a person is rewarded for giving charity if he does so purely for the sake of Allāh, but does this now mean private property is evil and must be abolished? Must governments take all wealth of individuals by force? Of course not.
In reality, this is modern-day apologetics designed to suit 21st century sentiment regarding slavery and has no basis in traditional Islam.
Today marks the day that one of the greatest Sunni scholars of India left this world: Alahazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Hanafi Qadiri Baraylawi [1272-1340 AH / 1856-1921]
Here is a thread of some of my threads regarding him ad translations of his writings
His detailed definition and discourse regarding worship:
So yes, "Anti-slavery fight is a modern idea, Islam unanimously agreed with this this practice, this is the consensus", this is correct.
I don't know why people struggle with the historical fact that wholesale demonisation of slavery and opposition to slavery in the Muslim world is a recent occurrence thst began in 19thC and that for centuries nobody of any group or sect had any issue with slavery in of itself.
The first who conceptualised an identity was German lawyer, jurist, journalist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs [1825-1895].
Prior to this, the focus was on the act of the individual, whereas activists such as Ulrichs shifted the focus towards the nature of the individual.
In 1867 he attended the Congress of German Jurists in Munich and argued for the repealing of laws which prohibited sodomy, mentioning that nature had implanted this inn them, and thus such laws are discriminatory against them.
The one deserving of Khilāfat is he who possesses the seven conditions of Khilāfat, that is:
1. Man,
2. Sane,
3. Pubescent,
4. Muslim,
5. Free,
6. Capable,
7. Qurashī
These seven conditions are necessary such that if even one condition is missing then the Khilāfat shall not be sound. The elucidation of this is in all books of creed.
Imām Taftāzānī says in Sharh al-Aqā’id:
“{He ought to be from Quraysh, and it is not permissible from other than them} meaning, it is stipulated that the Imām be a Qurashī due to his saying, upon him be blessings and salutations, ‘The Imāms are from Quraysh.’
Muslims ought to remember that Allāh has created cattle for the benefit of mankind, and they are a great blessing and favour from our Lord.
There are numerous explicit verses in the Qur'ān which clarify this, and to oppose this is detrimental to one's faith.
It is necessary not to fall prey to modern ideas of veganism, environmentalism, etc, which claim that benefitting from animals is immoral, harmful, unjust, and is destructive for the environment.