Monday, November 13, 2006

Q&A: Regarding prohibition of Tabbaruj for women?

The following is a draft translation from Arabic.

Question: I know that Tabarruj (adorning) is dressing in a way which draws the attention, so if the Khimar was a small one and the neck of the woman or some of her hair appeared, is she described to be adorning herself? Knowing that this little which is seen from her hair or her neck, does not draw the attention, where many women who do not cover their hair walk normally in the street and they do not draw the attention?

Answer:

Tabarruj (Adorning): is to display ones adornment in a way which draws the attention, but without uncovering the private parts. This limitation -without uncovering the private parts- was put, because the Tabarruj with uncovering the private parts is not allowed whether she drew or did not draw the attention.

The issue is not in uncovering the private parts, for example to put makeup on her face, or her fingers or her veil or gown, or to adorn her leg under the gown like those who put an anklet…. All this adornment if not common in the milieu in which the woman lives, and when this adornment draws the attention, then this is called Tabarruj and it is not allowed.

So, if a woman colors her nails -for example- in a village which is not used to see the nails of a woman colored, then this adornment on her nails draws the attention and is therefore not allowed, although the palm of the hand is not from the private parts.

And if she walks on the ground and the sound of her anklet is heard and draws the attention to the adornment on her leg -although her leg is covered- then this is Tabarruj and it is not allowed.

And if she wears a Khimar, an uncommon one- brocaded vividly in a manner which draws the attention, then this is Tabarruj and is not allowed although her hair is covered.

And if she wears a Jilbab (gown) which has drawings on the chest that draw the attention, then this is Tabarruj, and is not allowed although the Jilbab is a Shar’i dress.

Therefore any dressing without uncovering the private parts but draws the attention is -Tabarruj- and is not allowed, but dressing in a manner which uncovers the private parts is not allowed whether it draws or does not draw the attention.

The proof on that is;

((ولا يضربن بأرجلهن ليُعْلَم ما يخفين من زينتهن))
“And that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.” [Al-Nur: 31] the woman is not allowed to move in a way which draws the attention to her anklet although her leg is covered. So dressing in a manner which draws the attention (without uncovering the private parts) is Tabarruj and is not allowed not.

The Conclusion: Dressing in a manner which draws the attention (without uncovering the private parts) is Tabarruj (Adornment) and is not allowed. And dressing in a manner which uncovers the private parts is not allowed, whether it drew or did not draw the attention. Of course uncovering the private parts is not allowed.

Therefore any dressing -in what is allowed to be seen- which draws the attention, as explained above, is Tabarruj and is not allowed. That could be known by the circumstances and reality of the milieu in which the woman lives, and knowing that generally is not a problem, because people -men and women- can estimate and know that.

This is Tabarruj (Adornment) where drawing the attention decides whether this dressing is Tabarruj or not. As for dressing in a manner which uncovers the private parts, it’s place is not in Tabarruj, but in the Hukm of the private parts, and the evidences on it are obvious, a woman is not allowed to uncover any part of her private parts, whether that was drawing or not drawing the attention; Allah (swt) says:

((وَلاَ يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلاَّ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ وَلاَ يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلاَّ لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ ... الآية))
“That they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what appears from it; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands… the Ayat” [Al-Nur: 31], “what appears from it” means the face and palm of hands, as explained by Ibn Abbas -may Allah be content with them- Rasulallah says:

«إن الجارية إذا حاضت لم يصلح أن يرى منها إلا وجهها ويداها إلى المفصل»
“If a girl menstruates, only her face and hands to the joint are allowed to be seen” reported by Abu Dawud, so -according to the evidences- a woman is not allowed to uncover other than the face and palms of hands, to other than the husband and Mahrams.
That is why the duty is to dress a Khimar which is big enough to cover the hair and neck and twist it on the chest, so that nothing appears except the face and palms of hands. Allah says:

((وليضربن بخمرهن على جيوبهن))
“that they should draw their veils over their Jeibs (bosoms)” [Al-Nur: 31] which means to twist the veil on the Jeib (opening of the shirt) so that the neck will not appear, so the veil will cover the head the ears the neck, only the face and palm of hands can appear from her body.

By Sheikh Ata ibn Khaleel Abu al-Rashta

Arabic source

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have heard that the hadith from Abu Dawud (pasted below) is Daif Mursal as the narrator did not meet Aisha (ra) - pls can you explain why you have used this as an evidence -

“If a girl menstruates, only her face and hands to the joint are allowed to be seen” reported by Abu Dawud

Islamic Revival said...

The mursal hadith is the hadith from which a Sahabi has been omitted. For example, when the Tabi'i says that Rasool Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said or did such and such thing, or such and such thing was done in his presence. A representative example would be the hadith of a tabi'i who has met a number of companions and has sat down to learn from them like 'Ubaydullah b. 'Adiy b. al-Khiyar, then Sa'id b. al-Musayyab and their likes when they say (directly) that: Rasool Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said'. It is well known that all of the Tabi'un are treated equally, ie what the tabi'i narrated from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم without mentioning the Sahabah, without a difference between the older or younger tabi'I, because it is well known that they are treated equally.

The muhaddithun, scholars of usul (usuliyyoon) and the imams have differed over the use of the mursal hadith as proof. There were those who did not use it, and considered it to be rejected like the munqati' hadith; and there were those who did accept its use. Those who do not accept it reject it for a defect (illah), which is a transmitter, who is not known, has been omitted form the isnad, and who might be unreliable. The consideration in narration is reliability and certainty, so there is no proof in the unknown transmitter. This is the reason for rejecting the mursal ahadith. The reason is correct and the rejection of a hadith according to it is correct, but this does not apply to the mursal hadith, because the transmitter who has been omitted is a Sahabi. Even though he is not known in terms of his identity, he is known as a Sahabi. As stated previously the Sahabah are all trustworthy ('udul). They cannot be unreliable. They are rather definitely trustworthy. The reason for which they would reject the hadith does not apply to the mursal, nor is there any other reason to reject it.

Since the mursal fulfils the conditions of the matn, sanad and narrator, no harm is there from omitting the Sahabi as long as it is known that he is a Sahabi, and thus by definition is trustworthy. Thus mursal hadith is a proof and should be used as an evidence.

It might be said that the reason is that there is a possibility that a tabi'i narrated from a tabi'i like himself who narrated from the Sahabah. The ommision of a Sahabi does not mean the ommision of only one narrator, but the break in the chain means that it is possible that two narrators have been omitted, one of them satisfying the conditions of integrity, which is the Sahabi, while the other narrator is dubious, who is a tabi'i. Therefore, there is a possibility in the hadith of a jarh (invalidation) or absence of accuracy (dhabt), so it is rejected. The response to this is that the definition of the mursal hadith is that: it is a report narrated by a tabi'i from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم without mentioning the Sahabi'. The narration of a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i who is not known does not come under this definition. Even if we accept this possibility, that a Tabi'i is omitted and the Sahabi is not mentioned, this possibility of omission is by way of suspicion, which does not reach the level of possibility. This is because it is suspected the tabi'i narrated it from another tabi'i whom he did not mention nor mention the Sahabi i.e. he assumes that a Tabi'i has been ommited. There is no evidence for this hypothetical assumption. It is merely suspicion, which has no value and the judgement on the hadith is not based on it. It should not be said that an unknown narrator (majhul) has transmitted it, because there is no one to whom a narration has been ascribed so as to say that one is a majhul (unknown). Therefore, the mursal hadith is not cosidered to be from the rejected ahadith, rather it is accepted and used as proof.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the Abu Dawud hadith you posted: scholars such as Ad-Dhahabi, Bayhaqi, Albani, etc said that there are multiple chains of the matn, which strengthens the authenticity of it.

Anonymous said...

assalamu alaykum.
1.A sister went to a wedding ceremony wearing jilbab and khimar but with make up on face,lipstick,ornaments etc. and the ceremony did not have any segregation .So I told her why she showed tabarruj to non-mahram like make-up,lipstick,ornaments?she told me that in a wedding party it is not tabarruj as all women are putting make up.what does islam say about it?

2.another sis went to a restaurant with some other sisters where a brother came to see and talk with her for marriage and that sister had put make up as he would come and she says that it is allowed to use make up for marriage.what is the rulling regarding this?as the restaurant is a public place ,so can put make up there though we know make up is permissible in case of choosing for marriage.

3.another sister uses make up,eye lash,lipstick while going to university .She says that it will help her to interact between other girls there as they are very fashionable ,so they will listen to her dawah.what is the ruling about this?
jazakAllaah khair.

Taqiya Nielsen said...

As'salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatoAllah wa barakato. Are wedding rings considered adornments ?

jazaak Allahu khayran