Shaykh Al-Albaani rahimahuLlaah who, in both “Jilbaab al-Mar’atil Muslimah” and “Ar-Roddul’ Mufhim” posited that the woman’s face is not awrah and, hence she may not cover it at all times also went on to say the following:
كما أنهم يعلمون أني لا أنكر مشروعيته”، والمشروع هنا هو تغطية الوجه، وأما الكشف فهو جائز، ومعلوم المشروع وهو ما شرعه الله تعالى أفضل من الجائز، وهو ما أباحه الله تعالى.
“This is just as they (the scholars) know that I do not deny the legality of wearing the niqob (face veil). The primary rule here is covering the face while exposing it is permissible (secondary) and it is known that whatever Allaah legislates (as a primary rule) is better than what is permissible… ” (Ar-Roddul Mufhim, p. 1)
He also said:
ولو أنهم قالوا: يجب على المرأة المتسترة بالجلباب الواجب عليه إذا خشيت أن تصاب بأذى من الفساق لإسفارها عن وجهها: أنه يجب عليها في هذه الحالة أن تستره دفعا للأذى والفتنة، لكان له وجه في فقه الكتاب والسنة..
“Had they (scholars who hold to the obligation of niqob) say, “if a lady who wears the Jilbaab fears for herself harm from evil men who may get attracted to her face, and, in this state it is COMPULSORY for her to cover her face to avert evil, (had they said that) then, their position would have been rooted in the understanding of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.” (Jilbaab al-Mar’atil Muslimah p. 17).
Did the prof consider our sisters in this category whose niqob is for fear of fitnah? Did he? Or does he thinks that the scholars who considered the niqob as Mustahabb (more preferred) and not waajib (compulsory) did that على الإطلاق بلا قيد? (on a general note without exceptions).
The position of Shaykh Al-Albaani rahimahuLlaah on this matter is simple: if we say that niqob is waajib for all women, then, what that implies is that not wearing it is a sin and will attract punishment. الواجب ما يثاب فاعله ويعاقب تاركه (waajib is an act for which the doer is rewarded and the leaver is punished). What more, even the Shaykh himself mentioned that his wives and daughters are all niqobites!
What advise will prof give to those sisters in the category mentioned above? To continue to expose their faces and fall into fitnah? Is prof more knowledgeable than the scholars of Sunnah who gave the recommendation above? If, truly prof admits that niqob symbolizes greater piety and higher pedestal of faith, then, why is he admonishing the sisters to go for less? Isn’t that preposterous?
Auudhubillaah an akuuna mina’l-Jaahileen!
Paragraph 4:
“Apart from the security angle, niqab may constitute other challenges in a non-Islamic state. But while there is nothing wrong for a lady in the private sector to use it, questions will definitely arise whenever it is used by a civil servant, factory worker, or a student in a higher institution.”
This, by far is the most unfortunate statement ever made by a Muslim on the surface of the earth. That a professor of Islaam spewed such nonsense is most worrisome and disheartening. First, is Prof insinuating, like Kaafirs in the West that niqob poses a security threat? Has there been any of such reports even in the ongoing war against Boko Haram? And, if there were, how many? Have the insurgents not been using hijaab to perpetrate suicide bombings? Why doesn’t Prof. agree to Hijab being a threat to security, too? Subhaanallaah!
Again, if Prof. agrees that niqob is part of women’s dress in Islaam and it symbolizes a higher pedestal of faith and piety, then, why should we be bothered about what bigots and enemies of Islaam will say? Have they not risen against hijaab and Islamic banking system?
If we agree that it’s a fundamental right for a Muslim woman to cover her face, and that the constitution guarantees freedom of religion, then, on what grounds should anyone trample the rights of our sisters? Why should anyone molest our sisters by forcing them to expose their faces to non-Mahram when there are millions on the street who expose their hair, cleavages and bum bums without any condemnation or punishment?
To be continued…
FOR FIRST EPISODE CLICK HERE
