Zionoist/Neocon Daniel Pipes Calls for Niqab to Be Banned

[Daniel]

Not the amount of venomous contempt he has for the niqab, he can hardly contain his hatred. The next thing Pipes and his ilk will be demanding is the banning of the hijab.

Nothing in Islam requires turning females into shapeless, faceless zombies; good sense calls for modesty itself to be modest. The time has come everywhere to ban from public places these hideous, unhealthy, socially divisive, terrorist-enabling, and criminal-friendly garments.

Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4783

[AkramUKConv]

No, their isn't anything in Islam that requires this (unless Shari'a law in whatever area says so but then that is man-made). However, if the lady wishes to wear one, then that is just dandy! Freedom of Choice!

[Daniel]

No, their isn't anything in Islam that requires this (unless Shari'a law in whatever area says so but then that is man-made).

That is not the case. There is an opinion that wearing the niqab is wajib and there is evidence for that opinion.

[AkramUKConv]

That is not the case. There is an opinion that wearing the niqab is wajib and there is evidence for that opinion.

Sorry, I mean it is not enjoined upon Muslim women anywhere in the Quran. It was introduced into Arabia long before Muhammad. From my understanding, the tradition of veiling and seclusion (known together as hijab) was introduced into Arabia long before Muhammad, primarily through Arab contacts with Syria and Iran, where the hijab was a sign of social status. After all, only a woman who need not work in the fields could afford to remain secluded and veiled..

In the Ummah, their is no tradition of veiling until arond 627ce, when the verse of hijad was revealed in the Qur'an (33:53) but was not for Muslim women in general, only to Muhammad's wives, especially as his house was the Mosque.

That the veil applied solely to Muhammad's wives is further demonstrated by the fact that the term for donning the veil, darabat al-hujab, was used synonymously and interchangeable with 'becoming Muhammad's wife.

Muslim women probably began wearing the veil as a way to emulate the Prophet's wives, who were revered... but the veil was neither compulsory nor, for that matter, widely adopted until generations after Muhammad's death, when a large body of male scriptural and legal scholars began using their religious and political authority to regain the dominance they had lost in society as a result of the Prophet's egalitarian reforms. See Reza Aslan's 'No God But God, page 65, pasted below. (search inside the book)'

If a Woman chooses to wear now, based on the Quran alone, it is a way to emulate those wives. Can't 33:53 be taken as a man or a women having ot be hidden? Because it doesn't say for women, just to speak to them from behind a barrier.

I don't know about outside of the Quran.

[Daniel]

With all die respect, but those are the arguments invented by the modernists and their ilk. Like I said, there is those scholars who are of the opinion that the niqab is wajib and the have evidence for this position from the Salaf. Now, I personally am not of that opinion, but they do have evidence for that position. As for Reza Aslan, he is a modernist, so him saying such things doesn't surprise me.

[AkramUKConv]

With all die respect, but those are the arguments invented by the modernists and their ilk. Like I said, there is those scholars who are of the opinion that the niqab is wajib and the have evidence for this position from the Salaf. Now, I personally am not of that opinion, but they do have evidence for that position. As for Reza Aslan, he is a modernist, so him saying such things doesn't surprise me.

I wouldn't say invented, I just think it is a different opinion, which is valid. I think that everyone should always look at both sides of a story to make an educated, balanced and unbiased opinion - and then you can decide.

Yes, Scholars do have evidence (although Scholars are not infallible), but the 'Modernists' like Reza Aslan do also.

[Daniel]

Reza Aslan isn't a scholar and probably cannot read or speak Arabic, so he isn't really qualified to issue legally binding statements on such issues. As I said, those who say the niqab is wajib do have evidence from the Sunnah and the Salaf: http://muttaqun.com/niqab.html

[abu_ibrahim]

Akram,

Reza Aslan is a Iranian Shia. He is not a follower of mainstream Islam.

[AkramUKConv]

I havn't found that, he moved from Iran after 7 years and I cannot find anything about what he practices. Regardless, I don't think that makes a difference with the basic statement he made in his book. If he was making legal statements or anything other than a basic history of Islam for the layman, that yes, but he isn't.

I don't want to turn this into a thread about Reza Aslan, I was only using him as an example based on the Qur'an, nothing else. I never said he was a scholar in Islam or anything.

Although, I have read Sunni 'Scholars' say exactly the same thing (I will find the references). All I am saying is that it is a valid opinion and if Sunni Scholars are saying it aswell then that is as valid as another Scholar saying that they are Wajid.

[Abu Treika]

Imām Ibn Al Qayyim Al Jawziy (rahimahullah), explaining the woman’s ‘awrah said,

1. “The ‘awrah is of two types: an ‘awrah in the Salāh (prayer) and an ‘awrah in looking (’awratu fin-nathr). So as for the free woman, it is (allowed) for her to pray while her hands and face are uncovered, and it is not (allowed) for her to go out in the markets and gatherings of people like that (i.e. it is not allowed for her to go out without the face and hands covered).[See Tahthīb As-sunan and ‘Ilām Al Muwaqi’īn 2/80]

Imām Ash-Shirwāni said, “[Imām] Ziyādi in Sharh Al-Muharar said: For a woman there is three ‘Awrahs,

1. 1) ‘Awratu-fis-Salāh (the ‘awrah of prayer) – and that was mentioned before – It is everything of the body except the face and the hands.
   2) The ‘Awrah with regards to an un-related man looking at her: It is the entire body including the hands and the face, according to (the opinion that is) relied upon.
   3) The ‘awrah in privacy and amongst her Mahrams (those people related to her and un-marriable): It is like the ‘Awrah of men. [i.e. from her navel to her knees].

This division was also mentioned by the virtuous Shāfi’ī jurist, Imām Taqiyud-Dīn As-Subkī when he said,

1. “And what is the closest (in opinion), from what our companions have produced is that the face and the hands of a woman are ‘awrah in nathr (i.e. looking) and not in the Salāh.”

[Quoted by Imām Al-Khatīb Ash-Shirbinī in his Al-Mughnī Al-Muhtāj.]