Total Posts:190|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Head Cover is Not Mandatory in Islam

Fatihah
Posts: 7,755
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 10:03:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In verse 24:31, we read that it says to draw the khimar over the bosom. Modern dictionaries and scholars will define the word Khimar to mean a head cover. Yet was this the meaning at the time of revelation? The root word is khamr, which means to cover and is also the same root word used for intoxicants in the Qur"an because intoxicants cover a person's intellect. So it is clear that the word khimar means a cover for the body because of the meaning of the root word, but there are no ancient Arabic writings from the time of the Prophet or as even as early as within the first century after the time of the Prophet in which the word khimar is used only to refer to covering the head or hair. The understanding that the word khimar means a head cover is stated much later by scholars and dictionaries written centuries after the revelation, with no ancient Arabic writings to support this view. Ibn Kathir himself in his commentary of the Qur'an says that the word means something that covers, and it is what is used to cover the head. Not that its meaning is a head cover.

We also have the following statements from the 4 Imams whose works are the foundation of the 4 different schools of thought in Sunni Islam. Abu Hanifah said: "This is my opinion, but if there comes someone whose opinion is better than mine, then accept that." Maalik said: "I am only human, I may be right or I may be wrong, so measure my words by the Qur"aan and Sunnah." Al-Shafi"i said: "If the hadeeth is saheeh, then ignore my words. If you see well established evidence, then this is my view." Imam Ahmad said: "Do not follow me blindly, and do not follow Maalik or al-Shafi"i or al-Thawri blindly. Learn as we have learned." And he said, "Do not follow men blindly with regard to your religion, for they can never be safe from error."

So above we see that the 4 Imams themselves do not say to follow them, that they are only giving their opinion, and to reject their opinions if the evidence shows differently and can be supported by the Qur"an and Sunnah. In short, we are to go where the evidence lies and thus far, there is no evidence that the head cover is mandatory as they themselves never show evidence that doing so is a teaching they learned directly from companions of the Prophet, who learned it from the Prophet.

However, scholars have used a few primary arguments to justify that the word khimar refers to a cover only for the head and hair. One argument is based on the hadith that states that when the verse was revealed, the women cut the bottom of their waist sheets and covered their head and faces. (Bukhari vol 6 book 60 num 282). For starters, Ibn Hajar in his commentary of Bukhari says it should be translated as covered themselves ( transliteration of the words in Bukhari ikhtamarna bi ha). However, he does continue to say that although it should be translated as covered themselves, it means to cover their faces. Yet clearly, the covering of the face is his own opinion since the Arabic word for face is not there, as he admits by saying it should be translated as to cover themselves.

Furthermore, this does not necessitate that the word khimar means a cover only for the head and hair because a head cover was always a form of modesty according to the CULTURE. We see that Mother Mary wore a head cover according to Christianity and it is mentioned in their Bible to pray with the head covered (cor, 11:5,6,13). All of which is prior to the Prophet coming, thus showing that covering the head existed within the culture, especially when we consider the fact that there were Arab Christians living during the time of the prophet. We also know that the Prophet and Early Muslims reached into Abyssinia, which is North Africa and conquered Egypt during the time of Umar (ra), and at no time in history did the African Muslims commonly practice covering their head and hair completely. In fact, it was not a common practice anywhere in the Muslim world in the first few centuries after the Prophet until the tenth century and more common after the Ottomans took control in the early 14th century. However, even Ibn Battuta states that in the 14th century the women in Turkey did not wear a head cover. At the same time, there is no reliable chain of narrators going back to the first 4 Caliphs of Islam that ever document or report any dispute or issue they had with the Muslims regarding the fact that they did not wear the head cover all this time, which only supports the history that it was not mandatory. This shows that covering the head was a cultural practice only by some people before, during, and after the time of the Prophet and when the verse was revealed to cover, they covered their selves as they saw fit within their culture. Not because the verse says so because no one forced the early Muslim women to do so and there was no dispute or issue when they did not do so.

Another hadith that is used to say the word khimar means a head and hair cover only is the hadith in Abu Dawud that says nothing should show except this and this, and the Prophet pointed to his face and hands. (Abu Dawud num 4104). This is supposed to be proof that all of a woman's body is to be covered except the face and hands. Yet no one seems to want to finish the hadith. It actually says in the hadith that the hadith is mursal because the narrator is not known to have met Aisha (ra). This makes the hadith of a lesser degree in authenticity rather than the highest degree.

Another claim, which is known from Imam Abu Abdullah Qurtubi, says women would wear the khimar to cover their heads but the ends of the khimar would hang down their back, exposing the chest. The claim continues to say that when the part of the verse that says to cover the chest was revealed, the women took the ends of their head cover and covered their chest instead of leaving it hanging down their back. This is to show that since they chose to use their head covers to cover their chest in response to the word khimar in the verse, this means khimar refers to a head cover.

Still, this does not show that khimar means head cover just because some women reached for their head covers because by that logic, it should mean a waist sheet since the hadith in Bukhari (Bukhari vol 6 book 60 num 282) also says they reached for their waist sheets to cover as well. Also, and as stated by ibn Hajar, the translation says to cover themselves. So it does not specify covering the head and since there is no documentation showing that there was an issue between the Prophet or early Caliphs with the Africans who did not wear a head cover shows that it was not mandatory to wear one.

Thus the evidence is clear that the Khimar does not mean a head and hair cover, but that it means a cover for the body, and wearing it is not mandatory. It is a choice based on cultural practice.

And Allah knows best.
uncung
Posts: 3,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 11:24:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 10:03:49 AM, Fatihah wrote:
In verse 24:31, we read that it says to draw the khimar over the bosom. Modern dictionaries and scholars will define the word Khimar to mean a head cover. Yet was this the meaning at the time of revelation? The root word is khamr, which means to cover and is also the same root word used for intoxicants in the Qur"an because intoxicants cover a person's intellect. So it is clear that the word khimar means a cover for the body because of the meaning of the root word, but there are no ancient Arabic writings from the time of the Prophet or as even as early as within the first century after the time of the Prophet in which the word khimar is used only to refer to covering the head or hair. The understanding that the word khimar means a head cover is stated much later by scholars and dictionaries written centuries after the revelation, with no ancient Arabic writings to support this view. Ibn Kathir himself in his commentary of the Qur'an says that the word means something that covers, and it is what is used to cover the head. Not that its meaning is a head cover.

We also have the following statements from the 4 Imams whose works are the foundation of the 4 different schools of thought in Sunni Islam. Abu Hanifah said: "This is my opinion, but if there comes someone whose opinion is better than mine, then accept that." Maalik said: "I am only human, I may be right or I may be wrong, so measure my words by the Qur"aan and Sunnah." Al-Shafi"i said: "If the hadeeth is saheeh, then ignore my words. If you see well established evidence, then this is my view." Imam Ahmad said: "Do not follow me blindly, and do not follow Maalik or al-Shafi"i or al-Thawri blindly. Learn as we have learned." And he said, "Do not follow men blindly with regard to your religion, for they can never be safe from error."

So above we see that the 4 Imams themselves do not say to follow them, that they are only giving their opinion, and to reject their opinions if the evidence shows differently and can be supported by the Qur"an and Sunnah. In short, we are to go where the evidence lies and thus far, there is no evidence that the head cover is mandatory as they themselves never show evidence that doing so is a teaching they learned directly from companions of the Prophet, who learned it from the Prophet.

However, scholars have used a few primary arguments to justify that the word khimar refers to a cover only for the head and hair. One argument is based on the hadith that states that when the verse was revealed, the women cut the bottom of their waist sheets and covered their head and faces. (Bukhari vol 6 book 60 num 282). For starters, Ibn Hajar in his commentary of Bukhari says it should be translated as covered themselves ( transliteration of the words in Bukhari ikhtamarna bi ha). However, he does continue to say that although it should be translated as covered themselves, it means to cover their faces. Yet clearly, the covering of the face is his own opinion since the Arabic word for face is not there, as he admits by saying it should be translated as to cover themselves.

Furthermore, this does not necessitate that the word khimar means a cover only for the head and hair because a head cover was always a form of modesty according to the CULTURE. We see that Mother Mary wore a head cover according to Christianity and it is mentioned in their Bible to pray with the head covered (cor, 11:5,6,13). All of which is prior to the Prophet coming, thus showing that covering the head existed within the culture, especially when we consider the fact that there were Arab Christians living during the time of the prophet. We also know that the Prophet and Early Muslims reached into Abyssinia, which is North Africa and conquered Egypt during the time of Umar (ra), and at no time in history did the African Muslims commonly practice covering their head and hair completely. In fact, it was not a common practice anywhere in the Muslim world in the first few centuries after the Prophet until the tenth century and more common after the Ottomans took control in the early 14th century. However, even Ibn Battuta states that in the 14th century the women in Turkey did not wear a head cover. At the same time, there is no reliable chain of narrators going back to the first 4 Caliphs of Islam that ever document or report any dispute or issue they had with the Muslims regarding the fact that they did not wear the head cover all this time, which only supports the history that it was not mandatory. This shows that covering the head was a cultural practice only by some people before, during, and after the time of the Prophet and when the verse was revealed to cover, they covered their selves as they saw fit within their culture. Not because the verse says so because no one forced the early Muslim women to do so and there was no dispute or issue when they did not do so.

Another hadith that is used to say the word khimar means a head and hair cover only is the hadith in Abu Dawud that says nothing should show except this and this, and the Prophet pointed to his face and hands. (Abu Dawud num 4104). This is supposed to be proof that all of a woman's body is to be covered except the face and hands. Yet no one seems to want to finish the hadith. It actually says in the hadith that the hadith is mursal because the narrator is not known to have met Aisha (ra). This makes the hadith of a lesser degree in authenticity rather than the highest degree.

Another claim, which is known from Imam Abu Abdullah Qurtubi, says women would wear the khimar to cover their heads but the ends of the khimar would hang down their back, exposing the chest. The claim continues to say that when the part of the verse that says to cover the chest was revealed, the women took the ends of their head cover and covered their chest instead of leaving it hanging down their back. This is to show that since they chose to use their head covers to cover their chest in response to the word khimar in the verse, this means khimar refers to a head cover.

Still, this does not show that khimar means head cover just because some women reached for their head covers because by that logic, it should mean a waist sheet since the hadith in Bukhari (Bukhari vol 6 book 60 num 282) also says they reached for their waist sheets to cover as well. Also, and as stated by ibn Hajar, the translation says to cover themselves. So it does not specify covering the head and since there is no documentation showing that there was an issue between the Prophet or early Caliphs with the Africans who did not wear a head cover shows that it was not mandatory to wear one.

Thus the evidence is clear that the Khimar does not mean a head and hair cover, but that it means a cover for the body, and wearing it is not mandatory. It is a choice based on cultural practice.

And Allah knows best.

Did the women in Prophet era not veil their head? And what prophet said if they show off their hair or naked head in public?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 11:36:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 10:03:49 AM, Fatihah wrote:
In verse 24:31, we read that it says to draw the khimar over the bosom. Modern dictionaries and scholars will define the word Khimar to mean a head cover. Yet was this the meaning at the time of revelation? The root word is khamr, which means to cover and is also the same root word used for intoxicants in the Qur"an because intoxicants cover a person's intellect. So it is clear that the word khimar means a cover for the body because of the meaning of the root word, but there are no ancient Arabic writings from the time of the Prophet or as even as early as within the first century after the time of the Prophet in which the word khimar is used only to refer to covering the head or hair. The understanding that the word khimar means a head cover is stated much later by scholars and dictionaries written centuries after the revelation, with no ancient Arabic writings to support this view. Ibn Kathir himself in his commentary of the Qur'an says that the word means something that covers, and it is what is used to cover the head. Not that its meaning is a head cover.

We also have the following statements from the 4 Imams whose works are the foundation of the 4 different schools of thought in Sunni Islam. Abu Hanifah said: "This is my opinion, but if there comes someone whose opinion is better than mine, then accept that." Maalik said: "I am only human, I may be right or I may be wrong, so measure my words by the Qur"aan and Sunnah." Al-Shafi"i said: "If the hadeeth is saheeh, then ignore my words. If you see well established evidence, then this is my view." Imam Ahmad said: "Do not follow me blindly, and do not follow Maalik or al-Shafi"i or al-Thawri blindly. Learn as we have learned." And he said, "Do not follow men blindly with regard to your religion, for they can never be safe from error."

So above we see that the 4 Imams themselves do not say to follow them, that they are only giving their opinion, and to reject their opinions if the evidence shows differently and can be supported by the Qur"an and Sunnah. In short, we are to go where the evidence lies and thus far, there is no evidence that the head cover is mandatory as they themselves never show evidence that doing so is a teaching they learned directly from companions of the Prophet, who learned it from the Prophet.

However, scholars have used a few primary arguments to justify that the word khimar refers to a cover only for the head and hair. One argument is based on the hadith that states that when the verse was revealed, the women cut the bottom of their waist sheets and covered their head and faces. (Bukhari vol 6 book 60 num 282). For starters, Ibn Hajar in his commentary of Bukhari says it should be translated as covered themselves ( transliteration of the words in Bukhari ikhtamarna bi ha). However, he does continue to say that although it should be translated as covered themselves, it means to cover their faces. Yet clearly, the covering of the face is his own opinion since the Arabic word for face is not there, as he admits by saying it should be translated as to cover themselves.

Furthermore, this does not necessitate that the word khimar means a cover only for the head and hair because a head cover was always a form of modesty according to the CULTURE. We see that Mother Mary wore a head cover according to Christianity and it is mentioned in their Bible to pray with the head covered (cor, 11:5,6,13). All of which is prior to the Prophet coming, thus showing that covering the head existed within the culture, especially when we consider the fact that there were Arab Christians living during the time of the prophet. We also know that the Prophet and Early Muslims reached into Abyssinia, which is North Africa and conquered Egypt during the time of Umar (ra), and at no time in history did the African Muslims commonly practice covering their head and hair completely. In fact, it was not a common practice anywhere in the Muslim world in the first few centuries after the Prophet until the tenth century and more common after the Ottomans took control in the early 14th century. However, even Ibn Battuta states that in the 14th century the women in Turkey did not wear a head cover. At the same time, there is no reliable chain of narrators going back to the first 4 Caliphs of Islam that ever document or report any dispute or issue they had with the Muslims regarding the fact that they did not wear the head cover all this time, which only supports the history that it was not mandatory. This shows that covering the head was a cultural practice only by some people before, during, and after the time of the Prophet and when the verse was revealed to cover, they covered their selves as they saw fit within their culture. Not because the verse says so because no one forced the early Muslim women to do so and there was no dispute or issue when they did not do so.

Another hadith that is used to say the word khimar means a head and hair cover only is the hadith in Abu Dawud that says nothing should show except this and this, and the Prophet pointed to his face and hands. (Abu Dawud num 4104). This is supposed to be proof that all of a woman's body is to be covered except the face and hands. Yet no one seems to want to finish the hadith. It actually says in the hadith that the hadith is mursal because the narrator is not known to have met Aisha (ra). This makes the hadith of a lesser degree in authenticity rather than the highest degree.

Another claim, which is known from Imam Abu Abdullah Qurtubi, says women would wear the khimar to cover their heads but the ends of the khimar would hang down their back, exposing the chest. The claim continues to say that when the part of the verse that says to cover the chest was revealed, the women took the ends of their head cover and covered their chest instead of leaving it hanging down their back. This is to show that since they chose to use their head covers to cover their chest in response to the word khimar in the verse, this means khimar refers to a head cover.

Still, this does not show that khimar means head cover just because some women reached for their head covers because by that logic, it should mean a waist sheet since the hadith in Bukhari (Bukhari vol 6 book 60 num 282) also says they reached for their waist sheets to cover as well. Also, and as stated by ibn Hajar, the translation says to cover themselves. So it does not specify covering the head and since there is no documentation showing that there was an issue between the Prophet or early Caliphs with the Africans who did not wear a head cover shows that it was not mandatory to wear one.

Thus the evidence is clear that the Khimar does not mean a head and hair cover, but that it means a cover for the body, and wearing it is not mandatory. It is a choice based on cultural practice.

And Allah knows best.

Does allah say "children like sex"?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 11:48:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"We also know that the Prophet and Early Muslims reached into Abyssinia, which is North Africa and conquered Egypt during the time of Umar (ra), and at no time in history did the African Muslims commonly practice covering their head and hair completely. In fact, it was not a common practice anywhere in the Muslim world in the first few centuries after the Prophet until the tenth century and more common after the Ottomans took control in the early 14th century. "

- The prophet himself didnt reach Abyssinia
- The early muslims reached Abyssinia was occurred before the Prophet's migration to Madina, where most of the Quran is revealed plus new rulings that didnt exist before.
- where do you have the prove that in the first few centuries of Islam it wasnt a common thing to wear the head cover? thats sounds really absurd. most distinguished scholars of Islam (who met even companions of the Prophet) including the 4 Madthahibs say on the contrary.

i find many stuff where u asserting things without a prove or evidence in your post... and if you are right where in our time you find some prominent scholar say that? like Yusuf Qaradawi or like Imam Anwawi... noone.
Never fart near dog
Fatihah
Posts: 7,755
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:03:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 11:48:42 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
"We also know that the Prophet and Early Muslims reached into Abyssinia, which is North Africa and conquered Egypt during the time of Umar (ra), and at no time in history did the African Muslims commonly practice covering their head and hair completely. In fact, it was not a common practice anywhere in the Muslim world in the first few centuries after the Prophet until the tenth century and more common after the Ottomans took control in the early 14th century. "

- The prophet himself didnt reach Abyssinia
- The early muslims reached Abyssinia was occurred before the Prophet's migration to Madina, where most of the Quran is revealed plus new rulings that didnt exist before.
- where do you have the prove that in the first few centuries of Islam it wasnt a common thing to wear the head cover? thats sounds really absurd. most distinguished scholars of Islam (who met even companions of the Prophet) including the 4 Madthahibs say on the contrary.

i find many stuff where u asserting things without a prove or evidence in your post... and if you are right where in our time you find some prominent scholar say that? like Yusuf Qaradawi or like Imam Anwawi... noone.

Response: The early followers of Islam sought refuge in Abyssinia under the Prophet's instructions. So the Prophet did reach into Abyssinia.

As for the rest, you cannot provide any authentic chain of narration from anywhere that says the head cover was a common practice during the Prophet's lifetime or within the first century after him. Thus it is your claim that is absurd with no evidence.
Whereas Ibn Battum reports in the 14th century that in his arrival to Turkey the head scarf was not commonly worn by anyone, and not a single historical record reports that it was a common practice even after several centuries after the Prophet's death. So the historical evidence is clear.

Scholars who say otherwise have no evidence nor do they rely on evidence. They rely on the ridiculous practice of taqleed, in which they blindly follow the scholars before them. Even the 4 Imams themselves say not to follow them blindly and that they only state there OPINION.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:05:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 10:03:49 AM, Fatihah wrote:
In verse 24:31, we read that it says to draw the khimar over the bosom. Modern dictionaries and scholars will define the word Khimar to mean a head cover. Yet was this the meaning at the time of revelation? The root word is khamr, which means to cover and is also the same root word used for intoxicants in the Qur"an because intoxicants cover a person's intellect. So it is clear that the word khimar means a cover for the body because of the meaning of the root word, but there are no ancient Arabic writings from the time of the Prophet or as even as early as within the first century after the time of the Prophet in which the word khimar is used only to refer to covering the head or hair. The understanding that the word khimar means a head cover is stated much later by scholars and dictionaries written centuries after the revelation, with no ancient Arabic writings to support this view. Ibn Kathir himself in his commentary of the Qur'an says that the word means something that covers, and it is what is used to cover the head. Not that its meaning is a head cover.

We also have the following statements from the 4 Imams whose works are the foundation of the 4 different schools of thought in Sunni Islam. Abu Hanifah said: "This is my opinion, but if there comes someone whose opinion is better than mine, then accept that." Maalik said: "I am only human, I may be right or I may be wrong, so measure my words by the Qur"aan and Sunnah." Al-Shafi"i said: "If the hadeeth is saheeh, then ignore my words. If you see well established evidence, then this is my view." Imam Ahmad said: "Do not follow me blindly, and do not follow Maalik or al-Shafi"i or al-Thawri blindly. Learn as we have learned." And he said, "Do not follow men blindly with regard to your religion, for they can never be safe from error."

So above we see that the 4 Imams themselves do not say to follow them, that they are only giving their opinion, and to reject their opinions if the evidence shows differently and can be supported by the Qur"an and Sunnah. In short, we are to go where the evidence lies and thus far, there is no evidence that the head cover is mandatory as they themselves never show evidence that doing so is a teaching they learned directly from companions of the Prophet, who learned it from the Prophet.

However, scholars have used a few primary arguments to justify that the word khimar refers to a cover only for the head and hair. One argument is based on the hadith that states that when the verse was revealed, the women cut the bottom of their waist sheets and covered their head and faces. (Bukhari vol 6 book 60 num 282). For starters, Ibn Hajar in his commentary of Bukhari says it should be translated as covered themselves ( transliteration of the words in Bukhari ikhtamarna bi ha). However, he does continue to say that although it should be translated as covered themselves, it means to cover their faces. Yet clearly, the covering of the face is his own opinion since the Arabic word for face is not there, as he admits by saying it should be translated as to cover themselves.

Furthermore, this does not necessitate that the word khimar means a cover only for the head and hair because a head cover was always a form of modesty according to the CULTURE. We see that Mother Mary wore a head cover according to Christianity and it is mentioned in their Bible to pray with the head covered (cor, 11:5,6,13). All of which is prior to the Prophet coming, thus showing that covering the head existed within the culture, especially when we consider the fact that there were Arab Christians living during the time of the prophet. We also know that the Prophet and Early Muslims reached into Abyssinia, which is North Africa and conquered Egypt during the time of Umar (ra), and at no time in history did the African Muslims commonly practice covering their head and hair completely. In fact, it was not a common practice anywhere in the Muslim world in the first few centuries after the Prophet until the tenth century and more common after the Ottomans took control in the early 14th century. However, even Ibn Battuta states that in the 14th century the women in Turkey did not wear a head cover. At the same time, there is no reliable chain of narrators going back to the first 4 Caliphs of Islam that ever document or report any dispute or issue they had with the Muslims regarding the fact that they did not wear the head cover all this time, which only supports the history that it was not mandatory. This shows that covering the head was a cultural practice only by some people before, during, and after the time of the Prophet and when the verse was revealed to cover, they covered their selves as they saw fit within their culture. Not because the verse says so because no one forced the early Muslim women to do so and there was no dispute or issue when they did not do so.

Another hadith that is used to say the word khimar means a head and hair cover only is the hadith in Abu Dawud that says nothing should show except this and this, and the Prophet pointed to his face and hands. (Abu Dawud num 4104). This is supposed to be proof that all of a woman's body is to be covered except the face and hands. Yet no one seems to want to finish the hadith. It actually says in the hadith that the hadith is mursal because the narrator is not known to have met Aisha (ra). This makes the hadith of a lesser degree in authenticity rather than the highest degree.

Another claim, which is known from Imam Abu Abdullah Qurtubi, says women would wear the khimar to cover their heads but the ends of the khimar would hang down their back, exposing the chest. The claim continues to say that when the part of the verse that says to cover the chest was revealed, the women took the ends of their head cover and covered their chest instead of leaving it hanging down their back. This is to show that since they chose to use their head covers to cover their chest in response to the word khimar in the verse, this means khimar refers to a head cover.

Still, this does not show that khimar means head cover just because some women reached for their head covers because by that logic, it should mean a waist sheet since the hadith in Bukhari (Bukhari vol 6 book 60 num 282) also says they reached for their waist sheets to cover as well. Also, and as stated by ibn Hajar, the translation says to cover themselves. So it does not specify covering the head and since there is no documentation showing that there was an issue between the Prophet or early Caliphs with the Africans who did not wear a head cover shows that it was not mandatory to wear one.

Thus the evidence is clear that the Khimar does not mean a head and hair cover, but that it means a cover for the body, and wearing it is not mandatory. It is a choice based on cultural practice.

And Allah knows best.

- Brother, I suggest you leave these matters to the people who have some knowledge. Rest assured, the Hijab is Fard by Nas & Ijma'. This whole post is a joke. If you had any elementary knowledge of Arabic you wouldn't be saying any of it. What I am saying is, this is Allah's deen, not yours. So, it would be wise to not make lawful what isn't, or unlawful what is.

Fi Amani Allah.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,755
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:06:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 11:24:58 AM, uncung wrote:

Did the women in Prophet era not veil their head? And what prophet said if they show off their hair or naked head in public?

Response: Many women most likely did cover their head. That is because it was a part of the culture to do so, as wearing the head cover is one of the best forms of modesty. Yet it was not commanded to do so by the Prophet.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:07:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:03:18 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: The early followers of Islam sought refuge in Abyssinia under the Prophet's instructions. So the Prophet did reach into Abyssinia.

As for the rest, you cannot provide any authentic chain of narration from anywhere that says the head cover was a common practice during the Prophet's lifetime or within the first century after him. Thus it is your claim that is absurd with no evidence.
Whereas Ibn Battum reports in the 14th century that in his arrival to Turkey the head scarf was not commonly worn by anyone, and not a single historical record reports that it was a common practice even after several centuries after the Prophet's death. So the historical evidence is clear.

Scholars who say otherwise have no evidence nor do they rely on evidence. They rely on the ridiculous practice of taqleed, in which they blindly follow the scholars before them. Even the 4 Imams themselves say not to follow them blindly and that they only state there OPINION.

- Hahaha! HORRIBLE TERRIBLE ignorance.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:09:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:06:10 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:24:58 AM, uncung wrote:

Did the women in Prophet era not veil their head? And what prophet said if they show off their hair or naked head in public?

Response: Many women most likely did cover their head. That is because it was a part of the culture to do so, as wearing the head cover is one of the best forms of modesty. Yet it was not commanded to do so by the Prophet.

- Damn!! DAAAAYUMN!!! Please stop this. You're speaking about that which you have absolutely no knowledge. Dangerous territory.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,755
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:12:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:05:49 PM, Yassine wrote:

- Brother, I suggest you leave these matters to the people who have some knowledge. Rest assured, the Hijab is Fard by Nas & Ijma'. This whole post is a joke. If you had any elementary knowledge of Arabic you wouldn't be saying any of it. What I am saying is, this is Allah's deen, not yours. So, it would be wise to not make lawful what isn't, or unlawful what is.

Fi Amani Allah.

Response: In other words, you have no logical rebuttal, thus debunking yourself. So you should follow your own advice and desist from speaking on a subject you have no knowledge about. As your own failure to show any ancient Arabic writings from the first century of Islam in which Khimar means head cover only, or present any authentic chain of narrators from the first century after the Prophet that shows any dispute or issue regarding that Muslims did not wear the head cover proves that it is NOT mandatory.

Ijma is not Islam, as it is based on blind following. Not logic and reason as commanded over 30 times in the Qur'an to do so.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,755
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:14:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:09:42 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 8/29/2015 12:06:10 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:24:58 AM, uncung wrote:

Did the women in Prophet era not veil their head? And what prophet said if they show off their hair or naked head in public?

Response: Many women most likely did cover their head. That is because it was a part of the culture to do so, as wearing the head cover is one of the best forms of modesty. Yet it was not commanded to do so by the Prophet.

- Damn!! DAAAAYUMN!!! Please stop this. You're speaking about that which you have absolutely no knowledge. Dangerous territory.

Response: Yet your weak rebuttals continue to show otherwise. Your practice of taqleed is what is dangerous.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:21:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:12:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 12:05:49 PM, Yassine wrote:

- Brother, I suggest you leave these matters to the people who have some knowledge. Rest assured, the Hijab is Fard by Nas & Ijma'. This whole post is a joke. If you had any elementary knowledge of Arabic you wouldn't be saying any of it. What I am saying is, this is Allah's deen, not yours. So, it would be wise to not make lawful what isn't, or unlawful what is.

Fi Amani Allah.

Response: In other words, you have no logical rebuttal, thus debunking yourself. So you should follow your own advice and desist from speaking on a subject you have no knowledge about. As your own failure to show any ancient Arabic writings from the first century of Islam in which Khimar means head cover only, or present any authentic chain of narrators from the first century after the Prophet that shows any dispute or issue regarding that Muslims did not wear the head cover proves that it is NOT mandatory.

Ijma is not Islam, as it is based on blind following. Not logic and reason as commanded over 30 times in the Qur'an to do so.

- You know what Ijma' is (& I am speaking here about Ijma' Ma'sum)? It means every single scholar from the companions to this day says the same thing. & the fact that you're not aware of that is extremely disconcerting. & the fact that you don't know what "Khumur" refer to is even more worrying. I am pretty sure my 10 yo little sister know much more than you do in that regard. Please, pick a book & stop this charade of nonsense.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,755
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:26:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:21:01 PM, Yassine wrote:

- You know what Ijma' is (& I am speaking here about Ijma' Ma'sum)? It means every single scholar from the companions to this day says the same thing. & the fact that you're not aware of that is extremely disconcerting. & the fact that you don't know what "Khumur" refer to is even more worrying. I am pretty sure my 10 yo little sister know much more than you do in that regard. Please, pick a book & stop this charade of nonsense.

Response: According to Sheikh Google. You never met every scholar nor has anyone. You have no reliable chain to support such a claim. Thus your statement is based on taqleed, in which you blindly follow a claim with no evidence. Thus your argument is invalid.

Furthermore, truth is based on logic and reason. Not consensus. So consensus on that which is not supported with evidence is false. So you only make my point.

So to recap. You still failed to show that Khimar means head cover only from any ancient Arabic writing within the first century, and you the 4 Imams that you blindly follow say their selves to NOT follow them blindly and that they are stating their OPINION. Debunked as usual. Try again.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:31:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:26:15 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: According to Sheikh Google. You never met every scholar nor has anyone. You have no reliable chain to support such a claim. Thus your statement is based on taqleed, in which you blindly follow a claim with no evidence. Thus your argument is invalid.

Furthermore, truth is based on logic and reason. Not consensus. So consensus on that which is not supported with evidence is false. So you only make my point.

So to recap. You still failed to show that Khimar means head cover only from any ancient Arabic writing within the first century, and you the 4 Imams that you blindly follow say their selves to NOT follow them blindly and that they are stating their OPINION. Debunked as usual. Try again.

- Relax. If you know my stance, you'd know that I never argue with someone about something of which he is ignorant. So, I am really NOT interested in arguing with you about this. It's pointless. However, if you're interested in knowing instead & learning about that which you don't know, then I'll be pleased to share with you what I know, & in case I don't know myself, guide you into the source that would satisfy your inquiry. That is all.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,755
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:40:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:31:48 PM, Yassine wrote:

- Relax. If you know my stance, you'd know that I never argue with someone about something of which he is ignorant. So, I am really NOT interested in arguing with you about this. It's pointless. However, if you're interested in knowing instead & learning about that which you don't know, then I'll be pleased to share with you what I know, & in case I don't know myself, guide you into the source that would satisfy your inquiry. That is all.

Response: Amusing. You clearly know nothing and your blatant ignorance and delusion is evident. So you should quit while you are behind and save yourself from further embarrassment before you even think about debating any issue in Islam with me. Your sheikh Google and practice of taqleed is not Islam and will easily be exposed if you keep it up.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:46:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:40:08 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 12:31:48 PM, Yassine wrote:

- Relax. If you know my stance, you'd know that I never argue with someone about something of which he is ignorant. So, I am really NOT interested in arguing with you about this. It's pointless. However, if you're interested in knowing instead & learning about that which you don't know, then I'll be pleased to share with you what I know, & in case I don't know myself, guide you into the source that would satisfy your inquiry. That is all.

Response: Amusing. You clearly know nothing and your blatant ignorance and delusion is evident. So you should quit while you are behind and save yourself from further embarrassment before you even think about debating any issue in Islam with me. Your sheikh Google and practice of taqleed is not Islam and will easily be exposed if you keep it up.

- All Hail the Power of Ignorance. x)
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:52:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:50:46 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 12:46:51 PM, Yassine wrote:

- All Hail the Power of Ignorance. x)

Response: Says the deluded one.

- All Hail Fatihah!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:07:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:03:18 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:48:42 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
"We also know that the Prophet and Early Muslims reached into Abyssinia, which is North Africa and conquered Egypt during the time of Umar (ra), and at no time in history did the African Muslims commonly practice covering their head and hair completely. In fact, it was not a common practice anywhere in the Muslim world in the first few centuries after the Prophet until the tenth century and more common after the Ottomans took control in the early 14th century. "

- The prophet himself didnt reach Abyssinia
- The early muslims reached Abyssinia was occurred before the Prophet's migration to Madina, where most of the Quran is revealed plus new rulings that didnt exist before.
- where do you have the prove that in the first few centuries of Islam it wasnt a common thing to wear the head cover? thats sounds really absurd. most distinguished scholars of Islam (who met even companions of the Prophet) including the 4 Madthahibs say on the contrary.

i find many stuff where u asserting things without a prove or evidence in your post... and if you are right where in our time you find some prominent scholar say that? like Yusuf Qaradawi or like Imam Anwawi... noone.

Response: The early followers of Islam sought refuge in Abyssinia under the Prophet's instructions. So the Prophet did reach into Abyssinia.

As for the rest, you cannot provide any authentic chain of narration from anywhere that says the head cover was a common practice during the Prophet's lifetime or within the first century after him. Thus it is your claim that is absurd with no evidence.
Whereas Ibn Battum reports in the 14th century that in his arrival to Turkey the head scarf was not commonly worn by anyone, and not a single historical record reports that it was a common practice even after several centuries after the Prophet's death. So the historical evidence is clear.

Scholars who say otherwise have no evidence nor do they rely on evidence. They rely on the ridiculous practice of taqleed, in which they blindly follow the scholars before them. Even the 4 Imams themselves say not to follow them blindly and that they only state there OPINION.

but it was the beginning (relatively) of Islam when they migrated to Abyssinia.... whole stuff changed back then most of the Quran releaved in Madina thats really stupid to argue on the basis how they do stuff before the period of Madina where most of the Quran is reaveled!! lol how can you ignore this? compare Surahs of Madina AND Makki ones there is no comparison in the quantity beside that some teachings are replaced by new ones!! Quran 2:106

"We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?"

so you trying to use some "reasoning" but when it comes to this one you ignore it.

and according to you all the scholars of the past most notably the 4 madthahibs or people who met companions or tabia'ins by the thousands were all wrong and you are right is that correct? if the 4 madthahibs were wrong about this all the tabia'ins would have rebeled against them but they didnt... btw the 4 imams took the teachings from the tabia'ins !
i dont know why you try to invent something new to Islam dont worry we too like to look at women hair its awesome so what? your desires are something else you know you are wrong but keep holding it.... look at your wive's hair and all her body its permissible for you LOL!!!
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:11:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:52:06 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 8/29/2015 12:50:46 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 12:46:51 PM, Yassine wrote:

- All Hail the Power of Ignorance. x)

Response: Says the deluded one.

- All Hail Fatihah!

Yassine to the rescue :D
Never fart near dog
Fatihah
Posts: 7,755
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:32:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:07:32 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:

but it was the beginning (relatively) of Islam when they migrated to Abyssinia.... whole stuff changed back then most of the Quran releaved in Madina thats really stupid to argue on the basis how they do stuff before the period of Madina where most of the Quran is reaveled!! lol how can you ignore this? compare Surahs of Madina AND Makki ones there is no comparison in the quantity beside that some teachings are replaced by new ones!! Quran 2:106

"We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?"

so you trying to use some "reasoning" but when it comes to this one you ignore it.

and according to you all the scholars of the past most notably the 4 madthahibs or people who met companions or tabia'ins by the thousands were all wrong and you are right is that correct? if the 4 madthahibs were wrong about this all the tabia'ins would have rebeled against them but they didnt... btw the 4 imams took the teachings from the tabia'ins !
i dont know why you try to invent something new to Islam dont worry we too like to look at women hair its awesome so what? your desires are something else you know you are wrong but keep holding it.... look at your wive's hair and all her body its permissible for you LOL!!!

Response: I stated that before AND after the time of the Prophet up to the first century after him that there is NO documentation of any issue or dispute regarding the fact that they did not wear the head scarf. So what was stupid was you ignoring my whole statement and responding to half of it. So your point remains pointless.

So since you have no such documentation then it is your position that is unsubstantiated and supported by nothing. Thus the fact that the head cover is not mandatory remains valid.

As for the rest, if the scholars have no evidence to back their claim, then that makes them wrong. Period. So it is you trying to invent something new since nothing you claim can be supported. You practice taqleed, in which you blindly follow what is told to you. That is not Islam. Islam is based on logic and reason as stated dozens of times in the Qur'an. So it is you following your desires since you have no evidence. Thus the laugh is on you.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:42:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:32:07 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:07:32 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:

but it was the beginning (relatively) of Islam when they migrated to Abyssinia.... whole stuff changed back then most of the Quran releaved in Madina thats really stupid to argue on the basis how they do stuff before the period of Madina where most of the Quran is reaveled!! lol how can you ignore this? compare Surahs of Madina AND Makki ones there is no comparison in the quantity beside that some teachings are replaced by new ones!! Quran 2:106

"We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?"

so you trying to use some "reasoning" but when it comes to this one you ignore it.

and according to you all the scholars of the past most notably the 4 madthahibs or people who met companions or tabia'ins by the thousands were all wrong and you are right is that correct? if the 4 madthahibs were wrong about this all the tabia'ins would have rebeled against them but they didnt... btw the 4 imams took the teachings from the tabia'ins !
i dont know why you try to invent something new to Islam dont worry we too like to look at women hair its awesome so what? your desires are something else you know you are wrong but keep holding it.... look at your wive's hair and all her body its permissible for you LOL!!!

Response: I stated that before AND after the time of the Prophet up to the first century after him that there is NO documentation of any issue or dispute regarding the fact that they did not wear the head scarf. So what was stupid was you ignoring my whole statement and responding to half of it. So your point remains pointless.

So since you have no such documentation then it is your position that is unsubstantiated and supported by nothing. Thus the fact that the head cover is not mandatory remains valid.

As for the rest, if the scholars have no evidence to back their claim, then that makes them wrong. Period. So it is you trying to invent something new since nothing you claim can be supported. You practice taqleed, in which you blindly follow what is told to you. That is not Islam. Islam is based on logic and reason as stated dozens of times in the Qur'an. So it is you following your desires since you have no evidence. Thus the laugh is on you.

My prove that women were wearing the head covering is that at that time they were following the 4 mazthahibs the majority of course... so the poeple were taking from the 4 imams.. and the 4 imam took their reasonings/hadiths from tabia'ins and companions.... didnt they? so why the majority didnt rebel? they should according to your reasoning the tabia'ins had the obligation to rebel LOL
Never fart near dog
uncung
Posts: 3,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:45:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 12:06:10 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:24:58 AM, uncung wrote:

Did the women in Prophet era not veil their head? And what prophet said if they show off their hair or naked head in public?

Response: Many women most likely did cover their head. That is because it was a part of the culture to do so, as wearing the head cover is one of the best forms of modesty. Yet it was not commanded to do so by the Prophet.

and it is the way hijab, jilbab, veil is defined, namely from arab culture. veil in arabic culture is covering the head.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,755
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:48:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:42:45 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:

My prove that women were wearing the head covering is that at that time they were following the 4 mazthahibs the majority of course... so the poeple were taking from the 4 imams.. and the 4 imam took their reasonings/hadiths from tabia'ins and companions.... didnt they? so why the majority didnt rebel? they should according to your reasoning the tabia'ins had the obligation to rebel LOL

Response: Yet no authentic document on Earth says that the Muslims in the first century after Muhammad commonly wore a head cover. Not one. So your proof is based on.....nothing.

So you have no proof since you have been challenged repeatedly to bring the evidence and you have not. You have no proof. You practice taqleed, in which you blindly follow and parrot what has been told to you.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,755
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 1:52:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:45:26 PM, uncung wrote:

and it is the way hijab, jilbab, veil is defined, namely from arab culture. veil in arabic culture is covering the head.

Response: Which makes my point. In the culture, the head was covered. So it is a cultural practice. Not a mandatory teaching of Islam.

Just like a kufi is cultural for men. Not mandatory.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 2:01:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 1:48:09 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:42:45 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:

My prove that women were wearing the head covering is that at that time they were following the 4 mazthahibs the majority of course... so the poeple were taking from the 4 imams.. and the 4 imam took their reasonings/hadiths from tabia'ins and companions.... didnt they? so why the majority didnt rebel? they should according to your reasoning the tabia'ins had the obligation to rebel LOL

Response: Yet no authentic document on Earth says that the Muslims in the first century after Muhammad commonly wore a head cover. Not one. So your proof is based on.....nothing.

So you have no proof since you have been challenged repeatedly to bring the evidence and you have not. You have no proof. You practice taqleed, in which you blindly follow and parrot what has been told to you.

so you say that the majority didnt follow the 4 madthahibs?
Never fart near dog
Fatihah
Posts: 7,755
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 2:06:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 2:01:11 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:48:09 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:42:45 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:

My prove that women were wearing the head covering is that at that time they were following the 4 mazthahibs the majority of course... so the poeple were taking from the 4 imams.. and the 4 imam took their reasonings/hadiths from tabia'ins and companions.... didnt they? so why the majority didnt rebel? they should according to your reasoning the tabia'ins had the obligation to rebel LOL

Response: Yet no authentic document on Earth says that the Muslims in the first century after Muhammad commonly wore a head cover. Not one. So your proof is based on.....nothing.

So you have no proof since you have been challenged repeatedly to bring the evidence and you have not. You have no proof. You practice taqleed, in which you blindly follow and parrot what has been told to you.

so you say that the majority didnt follow the 4 madthahibs?

Response: Of course the majority did not follow. It was not a common practice anywhere in the Muslim world in the first few centuries after the Prophet until the 10th century and more common after the Ottomans took control in the early 14th century. However, even Ibn Battuta states that in the 14th century the women in Turkey did not wear a head cover.

So clearly, the majority did not follow. Those who say otherwise are practice taqleed. You blindly follow, parrot, and repeat what has been told to you with no evidence.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 2:15:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 2:06:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 2:01:11 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:48:09 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2015 1:42:45 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:

My prove that women were wearing the head covering is that at that time they were following the 4 mazthahibs the majority of course... so the poeple were taking from the 4 imams.. and the 4 imam took their reasonings/hadiths from tabia'ins and companions.... didnt they? so why the majority didnt rebel? they should according to your reasoning the tabia'ins had the obligation to rebel LOL

Response: Yet no authentic document on Earth says that the Muslims in the first century after Muhammad commonly wore a head cover. Not one. So your proof is based on.....nothing.

So you have no proof since you have been challenged repeatedly to bring the evidence and you have not. You have no proof. You practice taqleed, in which you blindly follow and parrot what has been told to you.

so you say that the majority didnt follow the 4 madthahibs?

Response: Of course the majority did not follow. It was not a common practice anywhere in the Muslim world in the first few centuries after the Prophet until the 10th century and more common after the Ottomans took control in the early 14th century. However, even Ibn Battuta states that in the 14th century the women in Turkey did not wear a head cover.

So clearly, the majority did not follow. Those who say otherwise are practice taqleed. You blindly follow, parrot, and repeat what has been told to you with no evidence.

lol im not a parrot the 4 madthahibs knew tabia'ins personally and even companions for that matter by the thousands and they were no conflicts about it! (about the hair) so u want to believe in you instead of them?

and claiming that the muslim majority didnt follow the madthahibs is a huge claim because they took from them the deen... you talking like everything is absolute why not look at your wive's hair instead of poeple's wives and daughters wtf man
Never fart near dog
Fatihah
Posts: 7,755
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 2:25:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 2:15:43 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:

lol im not a parrot the 4 madthahibs knew tabia'ins personally and even companions for that matter by the thousands and they were no conflicts about it! (about the hair) so u want to believe in you instead of them?

and claiming that the muslim majority didnt follow the madthahibs is a huge claim because they took from them the deen... you talking like everything is absolute why not look at your wive's hair instead of poeple's wives and daughters wtf man

Response: NO document in existence shows a chain of reliable transmitters that say that the head cover was a common practice even after the first century after the Prophet's death. No document in existence shows a chain of reliable transmitters reporting any dispute regarding the fact that it was not commonly worn.

AND NO WHERE ARE DO THE 4 IMAMS REPORT THAT THEY LEARNED FROM THE COMPANIONS OR TABIA'INS DIRECTLY THAT WEARING A HEAD COVER IS MANDATORY.

I CHALLENGE YOU TO PRESENT IT.

So you are nothing but a parrot. For you are challenged repeatedly and present nothing every time. The Imams said they are stating their OPIONIONS and they said DO NOT blindly follow them.

So your parroting fails. As you have no evidence and continue to run from the challenge.