Empiree:
First all, i didnt say this. I was simply silent and left it up to readers. Fact remains such women invite men, even non-pervert ones. Yes, if a man rapes half naked women he transgresses as well. But this thread is not about that. Possibility exists that 80% of the time men would snub well dressed women and not having second thought about her in a negative manner. But naked women stand the chance of being verbally and physically harassed 99% of the time. In the US for instance, if an half naked woman walks through guys, they always make comments about her body, make catcalling and all that.

Lol, the saudi men in that video did not snub the lady in full hijab. You said you find hijab ladies attractive, why are they attracted to you? Yes a man will ofcos look at a lady dressed sexy, does that mean she is calling men to rape her? this is called misread cue. There are many factors that causes sexual harassment e.g evolution, power, dominant, environment, psychological etc, blaming everything on the female folks is fallacy.

....

AbdelKabir:
....

What happened to the initial post of this thread? Why did you remove the hadith ya akhi

udatso:

What happened to the initial post of this thread? Why did you remove the hadith ya akhi

I fear I have misinterpreted the hadeeth after seeing that in shariah terms khimar and jilbaab are not the same....and what was used in the hadeeth is khimar....so since I'm no longer sure I don't want to use the hadeeth in a wrong way, so I will embark on bahth with regards to this...

AbdelKabir:


I fear I have misinterpreted the hadeeth after seeing that in shariah terms khimar and jilbaab are not the same....and what was used in the hadeeth is khimar....so since I'm no longer sure I don't want to use the hadeeth in a wrong way, so I will embark on bahth with regards to this...

Ok

udatso:

Ok

Abdelkabir was banned for typing in Arabic...

Anyway I removed the post in the afternoon after seeing this definition of khimar by shaykh ibn uthaymeen rahimahullaah....in his reply to the meaning of this hadeeth...

Lol.

However he made mention at the end that in salaah all of the woman is awrah except the face and the hadeeth at hand points to that.....

But the main thread based its definition of jilbaab on that hadeeth which I fear is wrong....

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said in ash-Sharh al-Mumti‘ (2/161): Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) was of the view that the entire body of a free woman is ‘awrah apart from that which appears of it in her own home, which is the face, hands and feet. He said: At the time of the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, women used to wear chemises at home, and not every woman had two garments. Hence if any menstrual blood got on to her garment, she would wash it and pray in it, therefore the feet and hands are not ‘awrah in prayer and are not ‘awrah in the sense that they should be covered in the presence of non-mahrams.

As there is no definitive evidence concerning this matter, I follow the view of Shaykh al-Islam concerning this issue, and I say that this is what appears to be the correct view if we do not state that in definitive terms, because even if a woman has a garment that comes down to the floor, when she prostrates the soles of her feet will be visible. End quote.

https://islamqa.info/en/193034 Published 2015.

So which opinion came first?

Why is this issue now in 2017?. This is one of the very elementary we learned growing up isn't?. There is no need to complicate anything. What was established was that face, hands and feet are not awrah. The rest are. Period and keep it simple. And finally cloth must be loose.

All contours should not be apparent. The reason this thing is getting complicated lately is bcus of modern civilization

I consider and follow the opinion the feet is awrah.

But yeah you are right, it shouldn't really matter.

Empiree:
Why is this issue now in 2017?. This is one of the very elementary we learned growing up isn't?. There is no need to complicate anything. What was established was that face, hands and feet are not awrah. The rest are. Period and keep it simple. And finally cloth must be loose.

Face, hands not being awrah in salaah is no problem but feet is what there is difference, no such thing as established, you learnt growing up feet is not awrah while I learnt growing up it is, I was taught by hausas, they followed the Maliki madhhab......wait a minute didn't Yorubas that you learnt from also followed the Maliki madhhab?

All contours should not be apparent. The reason this thing is getting complicated lately is bcus of modern civilization

I don't know what you meant by the underlined, but if its what I'm thinking, then, Its a problem now because every student of knowledge wants to verify what he has been taught as a Muslim growing up, rather no reasonable individual wants to blindfollow.

AbooUthaymeen:


Face, hands not being awrah is no problem but feet is what there is difference, no such thing as established, you learnt growing up feet is not awrah while I learnt growing up it is, I was taught by hausas, they followed the Maliki madhhab......wait a minute didn't Yorubas that you learnt from also followed the Maliki madhhab?




Its a problem now because every student of knowledge wants to verify what he has been taught as a Muslim growing up, rather no reasonable individual wants to blindfollow.

Yea, Same here (Maliki). There was never problem with feet. If hands were not, i wonder if feet were. Anyways, it is a matter if OPINIONs amongst Schools. There is no dalil tracing back to Nabi himself far as i know. So no big deal. I know most did wear socks though back then save mothers or old women. But then, there was never issue with it

Quranic "evidence" used by some that feet is awrah is not comprehensive enough actually. One cant really tell. Now here is hadith that seems to speak of it but cant really tell either


It was narrated by Ibn Umar that he said: The Prophet ﷺ said: «مَنْ جَرَّ ثَوْبَهُ خُيَلاَءَ لَمْ يَنْظُرِ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فَقَالَتْ أُمُّ سَلَمَةَ فَكَيْفَ يَصْنَعْنَ النِّسَاءُ بِذُيُولِهِنَّ قَالَ يُرْخِينَ شِبْرًا فَقَالَتْ إِذًا تَنْكَشِفُ أَقْدَامُهُنَّ قَالَ فَيُرْخِينَهُ ذِرَاعًا لاَ يَزِدْنَ عَلَيْهِ» “Whoever trails his garment out of pride will never be looked upon by Allah.” Umm Salamah said: “O Messenger of Allah, what should the women do with the hem of their clothes?” The Prophet said: “Lower it by a hand’s length.” She said: “What if their feet are uncovered?” The Prophet said: “Lower it by an arm’s length but not more than that.” Reported by At-Tirmidhi who said that this Hadith is Hasan Sahih.

The ONLY reasonable way to cover feet is socks. Garment doesnt do that without dragging below the ankle and may pick up dirt's. Her salat is valid without covering feet


there is an opinion for Abu Hanifah in allowing the showing of the feet because he saw in the Tafseer of what Allah سبحانه وتعالى says: ﴿وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا﴾ “and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent” [An-Nur: 31] that what is apparent from her is not only the face and hands, but also the feet. this opinion is leaning towards the evidence from the blessed verse and the At-Tirmidhi Hadith, and Allah سبحانه وتعالى is the All-Knowing Most Wise.

Feet are apparent OBLIVIOUSLY

Actually that hadeeth points to feet being awrah outside salaah, same as the aayah you are speaking about....

And this is why the scholars that said niqob is not obligatory still considered feet to be awrah....

What we discussing now is awrah in salaah....

So the face, hands and feets of a woman makes Muslim men go gaga but the same is not with men.

Allah that created the women's hair, hands, feets and body made a mistake or what?

Why are muslim women caged, put in burden because of what he created, I'm not understanding, the more I reason on this the more these things are not even making any sense.

Guy take your attention seeking nonsense somewhere else, no one is obviously interested in your madness abeg.

AbooUthaymeen:
Guy take your attention seeking nonsense somewhere else, no one is obviously interested in your madness abeg.

This is not nonsense nor madness, these are questions you and your fellows need not to be scared to ask yourselves.

tintingz:
This is not nonsense nor madness, these are questions you and your fellows need not to be scared to ask yourselves.

yes thats true.....but there are some questions left unasked

Marhyaam:

yes thats true.....but there are some questions left unasked

Why should we leave it unasked?

tintingz:
Why should we leave it unasked?

because its unreasonable

Marhyaam:

because its unreasonable

Are you saying what God did is unreasonable? If we see something unreasonable to ask then are we saying the thing itself is unreasonable?

tintingz:
Are you saying what God did is unreasonable? If we see something unreasonable to ask then are we saying the thing itself is unreasonable?

oga abeg,what is your stress? don't you no how to ask reasonable questions haha, its better you desist from this character of yours so you won't summon Allah's wrath......A word is enough for the wise.....salam

Marhyaam:

oga abeg,what is your stress? don't you no how to ask reasonable questions haha, its better you desist from this character of yours so you won't summon Allah's wrath......A word is enough for the wise.....salam

Madam, there is no such thing as unreasonable question, it might be unreasonable to you but reasonable to another person. Why should I desist from my ideology, what happens to freedom of speech?

And sorry, people have been criticizing Islam, Muhammad, Allah for centuries and the sky didn't fall.