"AHAD!" By Waleed Gubara

"AHAD!"

By Waleed Gubara

Why shed these tears of sorrow?
Why shed these tears of grief?
Ya nafsy how soon you forget,
After trials come sweet relief

Why turn you from Ar-Rahman?
Why yearn for a listening friend?
Ya nafsy, do you not remember,
On ALLAH, you must depend?

Read you not those stories,
of the trials in days gone by,
Of the Sahabi beloved by Allah,
Who for Allah's cause did strive?

Why loosen your hold upon him?
Why fling away, His outstretched Hand?
Ya nafsy, do you not remember,
Bilal's sabr on the blazing sand?

"Ahad! Ahad!" He cried,
While his flesh did drip and burn.
"Ahad! Ahad!" He cried,
To Allah alone he turned.

Forget you the firmness of Hamza,
As the gleaming swords did fall?
With Sabr he turned to Allah,
as the qureish did slice and maul.

Why drown in salty teardrops?
How can you dare compare your pain?
To that of Yasir and Summayah,
As the lay tortured on the scorching plain?

Forget you the charring of Khabbab,
As on burning coals he lay?
Ya nafsy how meager your suffering,
Wherefore do you lose your way?

Why befriend you not Al-Wali?
Why not in Salat to Him complain?
Like Job who only to Allah,
Turned in all his grief and pain?

Forget you those trials in this life,
Cleanse your heart and make it clean?
Ya nafsy, why all this sadness?
Do you not wish your heart to gleam?

Be patient in all your hardships,
Allah hears your cries of woe.
So trust Him and His hikma,
For He knows best and you don't know.

So tighten your hold upon him,
Lest He withdraw His outstretched Hand!
And remember the example of Bilal,
As he lay anchored on the blazing sand.

"Ahad! Ahad!" he cried,
While his flesh did drip and burn.
"Ahad! Ahad!" he cried,
To Allah alone he turned.

The definition of the sahaba

            From Anas (raa), he was asked (is there any one among
          the companions of Muhammad left after u), he (raa)
          said (some beduins remained who saw him (saaw), but
          the ones whom accompanied him and invaded with him
          no).
          The hadith is narrated by Ibn Saad, Ibn Al Salah said
          (its isnad is good), and al sayooti said (bi'isnad
          hasan).
          On this meaning, the majority of the scholars of usuls
          went that the person will not be a sahabi unless he
          lives with the messenger (saaw) for enough period of
          time.
          On the other hand, the opinion of the majority of the
          scholars of the hadith that the one who saw him (saaw)
          and believed in him , he is a companion. Then these
          differed will a person who saw him, then became a
          muslim after his death, a sahabi? Then some of them
          said even if he saw him from a far distance, he is a
          sahabi. And comes in the definition of the muhaditheen
          for the sahabi , the jin because the they had filled
          the requirements.
          And the basis of the definition is the word (sahabi)
          in arabic language, since the shairah did not put a
          special meaning for it, then we have to go with the
          linguistic meaning for the word. And the arabic
          language dictates in the urf (use)that enough period
          of friedship needed for companionship, and there is no
          cosideration in this regard for the later scholars
          whom tried to revolve around and claim that
          companionship does not need a period of mulazama
          (close friendship).
          If u see this, then the haqq is with the scholars of
          usuls.
          and it was narrated from Saaed Ibn Al Mussaiab (the
          imam of the followers) he said (we used not to
          consider a person from the companions except if he
          lived with the messenger for one or two year OR he
          invaded with him one or two battles).
          And it was mentioned that some of the tabieen used to
          narrate from some people who saw the messenger (saaw),
          then they they were not from the sahaba.
          And the goal of the scholars of the hadith is that
          they want to add the virtue of the companionship to
          any one who saw the hnorable face of the messenger
          (saaw), so that a group of people whom the messenger
          (saaw) witnessed for them with the virtue will not go
          out from companionship like jareer Ibn Abdillah al
          bujli and others.
          On the other hand, the usuli scholar he is the one who
          establishes rules and fundemantals of the deen, sice
          the sahaba are the ones who gave us the shariah, and
          transmitted the quraan and alone their ijmaa is
          devine.
          The imam said, the messenger (saaw( said (allah had
          chosen my companions over all people except the
          prophets).
          Allah swt said (the early ones of muhajiroun and
          ansar...allah is pleased with them and they are
          plesaed with allah).
          and this exclusive purification does not apply excxept
          to the sahaba.
          The imam said (and his words are taken from abu zarah)
          (and the sahaba are better than all others, and they
          are better than all the ones will come. This is
          because the deen is haqq and allah is haqq, and those
          who gave us this deen are the sahaba. And those who
          slander the sahaba, they are slandering our
          witnesses). (may be i misused the words).

Saudi treachery: Past and Present

King Abdullah Ibn Saud began the proceedings of the recent Arab league summit held in Riyadh on the 28th March with an opening speech where he said Arab woes lay with squabbling Arab rulers, who could only prevent "foreign powers from drawing the region's future" if they were united. He then went on to say in regards to the history of the Arab league ‘the question is: what have we done throughout these years to resolve all that? I do not want to blame the Arab League because it is an entity that reflects our conditions in details, so the real blame should fall on us: we the leaders of the Arab nations. Our permanent differences, our refusal to take the path of unity – all of that led the nations to lose their confidence in our credibility and to lose hope in our present and future.

He described some of the problems faced by the Muslim world "In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war…In wounded Palestine, the mighty people suffer from oppression and occupation. It has become vital that the oppressive blockade imposed on the Palestinians end as soon as possible so the peace process will get to move in an atmosphere without oppression."

What King Abdullah outlined in his opening speech of the current problems facing Muslims is well known amongst the Muslim world, what King Abdullah however did not outline is the role he and the Saud family have played in creating and prolonging these very issues. The Saud family have a history of treachery against the Ummah and have played a key role in preventing unity within the Muslim world.

Beginning in 2006, King Abdullah has been reviving the Arab peace initiative which will recognise the state of Israel if it gives back territories seized in the 1967 war. For this, King Abdullah brokered the Mecca agreement between the Hamas government and Fatah. King Abdullah showed his true colours when Israel invaded Lebanon in July 2006, he alongside Jordan, Egypt, several Gulf States and the Palestinian Authority, chastised Hezbollah for unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts, at an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo. Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal at the time said "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them." Saudi Arabia even got its leading Ssheikh, Abdullah bin Jabreen, to issue a fatwa, declaring it unlawful to support, join or pray for Hezbollah.

The Saud family on every occasion side with the colonialist western powers in providing active support. In the first Gulf war King Fahd authorized the deployment of U.S. forces on Saudi soil, the kingdom hosted over 600,000 allied forces, and its treasury reached record deficit levels. The U.S. spent $60 billion on the first Gulf War, with the Saudis and Kuwaitis footing half the bill. Presently, 5,000 U.S. troops have remained in the kingdom since the end of the Gulf War. By 1999, their presence had served as a major grievance for Saudi citizens and resulted in a group of 107 Wahhabi religious figures sending a 46-page "Memorandum of Advice" to King Fahd, which criticized the government for corruption and other abuses and for allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil. King Fahd’s response was to sack them all.

Historic Al Saud treachery

Treachery runs deep in the Al Saud family as the Saud family played a direct role in the destruction of the Khilafah and the creation of Israel. The British empire’s Foreign office made contacts with Ibn Saud in 1851 in order to develop relations with those suitable to be used against the Khilafah which had its capital in Istanbul. The Saud family at the time were a band of bandits involved in petty tribal differences, however with British money and arms Ibn Said was able to consolidate his position in key areas of the Arabian peninsular and eventually the whole peninsular. This was all represented in the treaty Britain signed in 1865 when Britain wanted allies in the region to give it a foothold within the territory of the decaying Uthmani Khilafah. In return, Ibn Saud needed Britain’s logistical and military aid to disrupt the Khilafah from within.

Britain provided Ibn Saud small subsidies, which were used to expand and maintain a colony of Wahabi forces that were the backbone of Ibn Saud’s all conquering army. Ibn Saud attempted to gain legitimacy by using the Wahabi movement, the followers of Muhammad ibn Wahab, who believed the Arab lands required purifying with his opinions of Islam. Ibn Wahab used the Wahabis to give his pro-British backed policies religious credibility and the Wahabis saw the opportunity to see their interpretations of Islam become the dominant school of thought in the area.

In 1910 the Al Sauds’ became ever more important to Britain as they would rebel against the Uthmani Khilafah, with British backing, by attacking there own cousin Ibn Rasheed who supported the Khilafah. Small subsidies became larger and a cabal of advisers were despatched to assist Ibn Saud’s advance.

The Arab Revolt (1916–1918) was initiated by Sherif Hussein ibn Ali with full British blessing with the aim to separate the Arab peninsula from Istanbul. This agreement was concluded in June 1916 after an exchange of letters with British High Commissioner Henry McMahon who managed to convince Sherif Hussein of his reward for such treachery of an Arab empire encompassing the area between Egypt and Persia, with the exception of imperial possessions and interests in Kuwait, Aden, and the Syrian coast. The British government in Egypt immediately sent a young officer to work with the Arabs. This man was Captain Timothy Edward Lawrence, otherwise known as Lawrence of Arabia.

After the defeat of the Uthmani Khilafah in 1918 and its subsequent dissolution in 1924, the British granted control over the newly formed states of Iraq and Transjordan to the sons Faisal and Abdullah as had been previously agreed. The house of Al Saud was able to bring the whole of Arabia under there control by 1930. Britain’s vision of Arabia’s fate following the Khilafah’s defeat was clear: in the words of Lord Crewe it wanted “a disunited Arabia split into principalities under our suzerainty”. For their part, the Saud’s, were, by and large, happy to acquiesce.

The Saud family directly collaborated with the British to destroy the Khilafah and if that wasn’t bad enough the Saud family directly collaborated with Zionists in establishing Israel. King Abdullah 1 of the then British created Transjordan studied with David Ben Gurion (Israel’s first prime minister) in Istanbul in the 1930’s. Abdullah had offered to accept the establishment of Israel in return for Jordanian control of the Arab populated parts of Palestine. In 1946 Abdullah expressed interest in ruling over the Arab parts of Palestine, and had no intention to resist or impede the partition of Palestine and creation of a Jewish state, as described by one historian.
His brother Faisal King of Iraq even eclipsed Abdullah’s treachery in January 1919. Faisal signed the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, with Dr. Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Zionist organizationin where he conditionally accepted the Balfour Declaration based on the fulfillment of British wartime promises of independence to the Arabs.
Saudi Arabia since 1995 has imported $64.5 billion in weaponry, far surpassing the second-largest importer, Taiwan, which acquired only $20.2 billion in arms. However none of this in anyway has been used for the defence of Muslims or conflict areas where Muslims are being suppressed. The only time Saudi has gone to war has been during the gulf war where it supported the coalition against Iraq and during WW1. The recent cancellation of an investigation into the al Yamamah arms deal between Saudi and Britain shows the Saud family have never had the stomach to stand up for Muslim issues but merely purchase weaponry to ensure the industries of its western masters continue whilst they betray the Ummah.

__________________

1. Sela, Avraham. "Abdallah Ibn Hussein." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, New York: Continuum, 2002. pp. 13-14.
Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, New York: Schocken Books, 1966, pp. 246-247; and also Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of 2. Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 121.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/faisal_balfour.html

Slavery didn't end 200 years ago - It evolved

Slavery didn't end 200 years ago - It evolved

The 25th March 2007, we’ve been led to believe recently, was two hundredth anniversary of the end of the slave trade. The anniversary was celebrated with reminders of how Britain led the way in abolishing the practice through the ‘Abolition of the Slave Trade Act’ passed on 25th March 1807.

But slavery was an institution that Britain fostered and grew for over three hundred years and on the back of which it expanded and maintained its empire. It was a practice it found very difficult to leave, for it was not for another century after the Slave Trade Act that slavery, in real terms, was banned. Legislation and parliamentary acts aside, many of the practices that made slavery what is was continued, often by its original perpetrators, and are still with us today. To believe that Britain’s legal prohibition of slavery somehow ended the practice is naïve if not dangerous.

The act of 1807 outlawed the slave trade but not slavery. Slavery was made illegal in 1834. But it continued in all but name: former slaves were hired by their former owners in slave-like ‘apprenticeships’. The vacuum created by emancipated slaves eventually led to the need to identify a new labour force. The replacement came in the shape of two and half million Indians who were ‘indentured’ – contracted to work on plantations – but who were treated no better than slaves were. Indentured emigration went on until 1917, demonstrating that slavery certainly wasn’t over when we are led to believe it was.

Today, the NGO ‘Free the Slaves’ believes that we have the largest number of people that has ever been in slavery at any point in world history and are being paid the lowest price that there has ever been for a slave in raw labour terms.

But slavery was marked by a number of practices that have continued and still plague the world, often practiced by the same nations that claim to have brought slavery to an end. The slave trade was built on the belief in the inferiority of those it enslaved, through which it justified appalling treatment, abandonment of rights, strict control of behaviours and practices and the consideration of people as property. These practices still exist as do the underlying beliefs and language upon which slavery was built.

For example, the belief amongst many western politicians and commentators is that the west is a civilising force; that its engagement in the world can only be for the betterment of those under the west’s tutelage. The resurgence of cultural imperialism and liberal interventionism - that the west has the right and indeed moral obligation to interfere and dictate matters for other nations - hark back to the day of the empire and are premised on the inferiority or lesser civilisational status of those it seeks to ‘correct’.

It is upon this premise that the west has and continues to engage with the rest of the world. Economically, the world remains under the grip of aggressive capitalism and western policies that dictate domestic economic policy for a large chunk of the world which often better serve the west than they do the countries themselves. The pernicious use of interest bearing loans, IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programmes, and western manipulation of markets through the use of subsidies have turned natural resource-rich countries poor. With the burden of debt, compliance to the terms of repayment, aid packages and imposed domestic programmes and polices, poverty and unemployment are driving poor countries to measures that are even more desperate. This economic situation still drives forced labour and western multinationals continue to employ workers in third world countries for a pittance and in despicable working conditions; human trafficking and sex slavery, an increasing problem in the west, also highlights the human tragedy of pressures born out of economic slavery. The irony is that the docks in east London which sent ships to colonise huge swathes of South Asia and Africa, enlisting hundreds of thousands of slaves, have now been replaced by the shining towers of global financial institutions which unleash a similar economic stranglehold.

Political slavery is the intricate and careful control of proxies through the perpetual threat of sanctions, war or abandonment, maintains a litany of western supported tyrants in the Muslim world who are unable to act independently or break away from the foreign agendas that sacrifice the progress of their own people. These despots in turn ensure their citizenry do not challenge their master-slave relationship with the west through brutal security measures and archaic laws and political systems. Take Hosni Mubarak’s new legislation that bans parties based on religion in a country that is a huge Muslim majority. The political slavery of the Middle East continues to deny the region the ability to independently move forward, prosper and appoint representative leaderships to govern for not despite them.

The victims of slavery have called for apologies and reparations. The British, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese have blocked an EU apology for the slave trade. The litigation that would follow would certainly be colossal, if the pay-outs from Holocaust cases are anything to go by, and may explain the west’s reluctance. Even if it were to apologise for the past, the present is still plagued by a culture born out of colonialism and slavery. While some argue that modern slavery is perpetrated through private, not governmental, bodies, it is for governments to act not remain silent over these crimes. The challenge is not merely to seek apologies, but to redress a global political and economic situation which is likely only to entrench the debilitating situation in the non-west.

Governments have underplayed this crime in a shameful way. It is easy to see how the memories of the Second World War, the holocaust, terrorist bombings are remembered year after year, ‘lest we forget’. Time has not made this crime, of genocidal proportions, any less disgraceful.

An ideological divide – Islam works against slavery

Slavery is a human problem that has existed for millennia. People were enslaved in war, by piracy and as a punitive sanction for crime. Slaves had no rights; societies did not institutionalise the rights of these people to be treated justly.

When Islam came to the world, slavery was widespread yet Islam created a profound change by laying down laws defining a way of treating slaves justly as human beings as well as affording them rights that were previously unheard of. There were major encouragements to free people from slavery as well as numerous obligations in this regard. The various means through which people came to be enslaved were ended – including during the course of war. Hence, at a systemic level a series of rules came to weaken the institution of slavery, as well as rules to regulate the treatment of slaves.

For example, regarding the treatment of slaves, the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) said: “Fear Allah in regards of those whom your right hands possess. They are your brothers whom Allah placed under your hands (authority). Feed them with what you eat, clothe them with what you wear and do not impose duties upon them which will overcome them. If you so impose duties, then assist them” and moved to change the language that have previously subjugated slaves saying, “One of you should not say: My slave (abd) and my slave-girl (amati). All of you are the slaves of Allah and all of your women are the slave-girls of Allah. Rather let him say: My (ghulam) boy and my (jariyah) girl and my (fata) young boy and my (fatati) young girl.” Islam gave the slave the right to marry, divorce, study and to be a witness upon others, in a society where they had no rights.

Regarding the encouragement to free slaves, the Prophet (SAW) said: “Whichever man frees a Muslim man, Allah ta’ala will liberate for each of his organ an organ from the Fire”. Islam further obliged the freeing of slaves under certain circumstances and made the freeing of slaves an expiation for a great number of sins, such as breaking oaths, if one had killed accidentally, incorrectly breaking a fast during Ramadhan as well as many others. Furthermore, the state treasury of the Islamic state, the Bait al-Mal, dedicates a section of its funds to the freeing of slaves, from the words of Allah (SWT) in the Qur’an: “Verily the sadaqat is only for the poor, the indigent, those who work upon it, those whose hearts are to be reconciled, for (riqab), debtors, for the way of Allah and the wayfarer, an obligation from Allah and Allah is knower wise”, the statement “and for (riqab)” referring to freeing slaves.

Islam further prohibited the enslaving of free people in a decisive way including captives of war. The Prophet Mohammed (SAW) said: “Allah ‘azza wa jalla said: Three (persons) I will dispute with them on the Day of Judgement: A man who gave in My name then he betrayed, a man who sold a free man and ate his price, and a man who employed an employee who fulfilled for him but he did not give him his wage”.

By contrast, Capitalism embraced slavery and grew the institution. The value of profit was given a higher status than the value of human life and dignity. The slave trade bred a racism that permeates till today. Never before, whether in Asia, China, Africa, the Middle East or indeed Europe, had slavery been solely associated with one race. The slave traders selected black people viewing them as inferior.

Furthermore, the brutal treatment and the industrial levels of enslaving people were characteristic of the Capitalist system, which invented battery farming. Those who called for the end of the slave trade were individuals out of step with that system which had embraced it. By a similar vein those in the Muslim world who participated in the enslaving of people, and were complicit with the slave traders were individuals out of step with the Islamic system – a system which had legally closed routes to enslavement, and effectively worked against it.

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) - doctor of doctors

by Dr. Monzur Ahmed

Ibn Sina was born in 980 C.E. in the village of Afshana near Bukhara which today is located in the far south of Russia. His father, Abdullah, an adherent of the Ismaili sect, was from Balkh and his mother from a village near Bukhara. In any age Ibn Sina, known in the West as Avicenna, would have been a giant among giants. He displayed exceptional intellectual prowess as a child and at the age of ten was already proficient in the Qur'an and the Arabic classics. During the next six years he devoted himself to Muslim Jurisprudence, Philosophy and Natural Science and studied Logic, Euclid, and the Almeagest. He turned his attention to Medicine at the age of 17 years and found it, in his own words, "not difficult". However he was greatly troubled by metaphysical problems and in particular the works of Aristotle. By chance, he obtained a manual on this subject by the celebrated philosopher al-Farabi which solved his difficulties. By the age of 18 he had built up a reputation as a physician and was summoned to attend the Samani ruler Nuh ibn Mansur (reigned 976-997 C.E.), who, in gratitude for Ibn Sina's services, allowed him to make free use of the royal library, which contained many rare and even unique books. Endowed with great powers of absorbing and retaining knowledge, this Muslim scholar devoured the contents of the library and at the age of 21 was in a position to compose his first book. At about the same time he lost his father and soon afterwards left Bukhara and wandered westwards. He entered the services of Ali ibn Ma'mun, the ruler of Khiva, for a while, but ultimately fled to avoid being kidnapped by the Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna. After many wanderings he came to Jurjan, near the Caspian Sea, attracted by the fame of its ruler, Qabus, as a patron of learning. Unfortunately Ibn Sina's arrival almost coincided with the deposition and murder of this ruler. At Jurjan, Ibn Sina lectured on logic and astronomy and wrote the first part of the Qanun, his greatest work.

Abu Ali al-Husain ibn Abdullah ibn Sina (980-1037 C.E.)

He then moved to Ray, near modern Teheran and established a busy medical practice. When Ray was besieged, Ibn Sina fled to Hamadan where he cured Amir Shamsud-Dawala of colic and was made Prime Minister. A mutiny of soldiers against him caused his dismissal and imprisonment, but subsequently the Amir, being again attacked by the colic, summoned him back, apologised and reinstated him! His life at this time was very strenuous: during the day he was busy with the Amir's services, while a great deal of the night was passed in lecturing and dictating notes for his books. Students would gather in his home and read parts of his two great books, the Shifa and the Qanun, already composed. Following the death of the Amir, Ibn Sina fled to Isfahan after a few brushes with the law, including a period in prison. He spent his final years in the services of the ruler of the city, Ala al-Daula whom he advised on scientific and literary matters and accompanied on military campaigns. Friends advised him to slow down and take life in moderation, but this was not in character. "I prefer a short life with width to a narrow one with length", he would reply. Worn out by hard work and hard living, Ibn Sina died in 1036/1 at a comparatively early age of 58 years. He was buried in Hamadan where his grave is still shown. Al-Qifti states that Ibn Sina completed 21 major and 24 minor works on philosophy, medicine, theology, geometry, astronomy and the like. Another source (Brockelmann) attributes 99 books to Ibn Sina comprising 16 on medicine, 68 on theology and metaphysics 11 on astronomy and four on verse. Most of these were in Arabic; but in his native Persian he wrote a large manual on philosophical science entitled Danish-naama-i-Alai and a small treatise on the pulse. His most celebrated Arabic poem describes the descent of Soul into the Body from the Higher Sphere. Among his scientific works, the leading two are the Kitab al-Shifa (Book of Healing), a philosophical encyclopaedia based upon Aristotelian traditions and the al-Qanun al-Tibb which represents the final categorisation of Greco-Arabian thoughts on Medicine. Of Ibn Sina's 16 medical works, eight are versified treatises on such matter as the 25 signs indicating the fatal termination of illnesses, hygienic precepts, proved remedies, anatomical memoranda etc. Amongst his prose works, after the great Qanun, the treatise on cardiac drugs, of which the British Museum possesses several fine manuscripts, is probably the most important, but it remains unpublished. The Qanun is, of course, by far the largest, most famous and most important of Ibn Sina's works. The work contains about one million words and like most Arabic books, is elaborately divided and subdivided. The main division is into five books, of which the first deals with general principles; the second with simple drugs arranged alphabetically; the third with diseases of particular organs and members of the body from the head to the foot; the fourth with diseases which though local in their inception spread to other parts of the body, such as fevers and the fifth with compound medicines. The Qanun distinguishes mediastinitis from pleurisy and recognises the contagious nature of phthisis (tuberculosis of the lung) and the spread of disease by water and soil. It gives a scientific diagnosis of ankylostomiasis and attributes the condition to an intestinal worm. The Qanun points out the importance of dietetics, the influence of climate and environment on health and the surgical use of oral anaesthetics. Ibn Sina advised surgeons to treat cancer in its earliest stages, ensuring the removal of all the diseased tissue. The Qanun's materia medica considers some 760 drugs, with comments on their application and effectiveness. He recommended the testing of a new drug on animals and humans prior to general use. Ibn Sina noted the close relationship between emotions and the physical condition and felt that music had a definite physical and psychological effect on patients. Of the many psychological disorders that he described in the Qanun, one is of unusual interest: love sickness! ibn Sina is reputed to have diagnosed this condition in a Prince in Jurjan who lay sick and whose malady had baffled local doctors. Ibn Sina noted a fluttering in the Prince's pulse when the address and name of his beloved were mentioned. The great doctor had a simple remedy: unite the sufferer with the beloved. The Arabic text of the Qanun was published in Rome in 1593 and was therefore one of the earliest Arabic books to see print. It was translated into Latin by Gerard of Cremona in the 12th century. This 'Canon', with its encyclopaedic content, its systematic arrangement and philosophical plan, soon worked its way into a position of pre-eminence in the medical literature of the age displacing the works of Galen, al-Razi and al-Majusi, and becoming the text book for medical education in the schools of Europe. In the last 30 years of the 15th century it passed through 15 Latin editions and one Hebrew. In recent years, a partial translation into English was made. From the 12th-17th century, the Qanun served as the chief guide to Medical Science in the West and is said to have influenced Leonardo da Vinci. In the words of Dr. William Osler, the Qanun has remained "a medical bible for a longer time than any other work". Despite such glorious tributes to his work, Ibn Sina is rarely remembered in the West today and his fundamental contributions to Medicine and the European reawakening goes largely unrecognised. However, in the museum at Bukhara, there are displays showing many of his writings, surgical instruments from the period and paintings of patients undergoing treatment. An impressive monument to the life and works of the man who became known as the 'doctor of doctors' still stands outside Bukhara museum and his portrait hangs in the Hall of the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Paris.

Pre-op, 10th century style - Ibn Sina is known to have operated on a friend's gall bladder

Selected References:

1. Edward G. Browne (1921) Arabian Medicine, London, Cambridge University Press.

2. Ynez Viole O'Neill (1973) in Mcgraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of World Biography vol I: Aalto to Bizet.

3. Philip K. Hitti (1970) History of the Arabs, 10th ed, London, Macmillan, pp 367-368

4. M.A. Martin (1983) in The Genius of Arab Civilisation, 2nd ed, Edited by J.R. Hayes, London, Eurabia Puplishing, pp 196-7

It is not obligatory for the Muslim woman to cover her face

The view that the veil (Hijab or face cover) has been made ompulsory for women in Islam, by which their faces, excluding the eyes, should be covered, is an Islamic opinion. Some Mujtahid-Imams from the mazahib have taken this view. Another Islamic opinion is that veil has not been made compulsory for women in Islam and that their faces do not have to be covered under any circumstance. This view has also been held by some Mujtahid-Imams from amongst the Mazahib. This is one of the serious social problems as the adoption of either of these two opinions, will effect the style of the Islamic life. A comprehensive exposition of the Shari'ah evidences relating to this problem, by its study, pursuance and application to the problem is imperative so as Muslims can only adopt the strongest opinion in terms of the evidence and in order that the Islamic State adopts the strongest opinion according to the preponderance of the evidence.

Indeed, for nearly half a century discussions concerning women have taken place. These discussions were generated by the disbelieving colonialists in the minds of those infatuated by the West, and smitten by its culture and viewpoint about life. They attempted to insert un-Islamic opinions into Islam and corrupt the Muslims Aqeedah. The colonialists inserted the notion of veiling (Hijab) or unveiling of women. The intellectuals amongst the Ulama did not challenge these people. It was authors, men of letters and narrow minded educated people who confronted them and led to the strengthening of the views of those smitten by the western culture. This made their thoughts the subject of study and discussion despite the fact that they were western thoughts, which were initiated to attack Islam, corrupt the Muslims and cause doubt concerning their Deen. Indeed, these discussions did take place and their remnants and effects are still present today. However, they do not merit study or reach the status of a legislative and societal discussion. The correct discussion only concerns the Shari'ah ules derived by the Mujtahidin in which they relied on a Daleel or a semblance of a daleel (Shubhat Daleel) and not the study of the views of writers, esignations of agents, the sophistry of the deceived, and the lies of the ones enamoured by the western culture. As for what the Mujtahidin have stated by way of derivation from the Shari'ah evidences, this what should be made the subject of study and discussion from the legislative point of view.

In addition to the views of Mujtahidin, the views of certain Fuqaha, sheikhs and those partisan to Hijab will be studied in order to eliminate any doubt from their minds. The views of the Mujtahidin and their evidences will be examined until the strongest view is apparent and whoever considers this view preponderant is required to act according to it and work to apply it.

Those who advocated the veil took the opinion that the 'Awrah of the woman includes the whole body except the hands and face, a matter which only applies in prayer. Whilst not praying, they said that her whole body is 'Awrah, including the hands and face. This opinion is based on their view of the Kitab and Sunnah.

As for the Kitab, Allah _ says:

"And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen (Hijab)". [Al- Ahzab: 53]

The verse is clear in terms of its imposition of the screen (veil) on them.

Allah _ says:

"Oh Prophet ! Tell your wives and your daughters and the woman of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed." [Al- Ahzab: 59]

They maintained that the meaning of 'to draw their cloaks all over their bodies' is that they should cast it over their persons and conceal their faces and figures with them. They thought that women in the early period of Islam followed the custom in Jahiliyya, thus indecently wearing a chemise and a Khimar (head cover), with no difference between a free woman and a slave girl. The devious amongst the youth (of Madinah) used to molest the slave girls when they used to go out through the palm trees in the fields to answer the call of nature. Sometimes they would molest free women and claim that they were slave girls, they would say we thought that so and so is a slave girl. Free women were thus ordered to differ in their attire from the clothing of slave girls i.e. by wearing a loose outer garment (Ardiya) and cover (Malahif), and by covering their heads and faces in order to look modest and walk briskly so that the wishful do not desire anything of them. This was considered more appropriate so that they are recognised and not molested. Some amongst them say (with respect to the part of the verse); that they should be known that there is an elision of the la (of negation). In other words it is more appropriate that attractive and non-attractive women should

not be recognised so that they are not antagonised.

Allah _ also says:

"And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves as in the times of ignorance". [Al- Ahzab: 33]

They said that Allah's command to women to stay in their houses is an evidence for the veil.

As for the Sunnah, they base their opinion on the narration that the Prophet

_ said: “The woman (herself ) is ‘Awrah”, and because of the Prophets

saying: “If anyone of you (the women) has a (male) slave who wants to free himself (by buying himself) and he possessed the price, you should seclude yourself from him”. And due to what has been narrated from Umm Salama who said: Hafsa and I were sitting with the Prophet _when Ibn Umm Maktum asked permission to enter.

So the Prophet said: “seclude yourselves from him”. So I said “Oh Messenger of Allah. He is blind, he cannot see.” He _ said: “Are you both also blind. Can you not see him?”. Abu Dawood narrated that: Al-Fadhl b. Abbas was the Prophet's

riding partner when a woman from Banu Khath'am came seeking a Hukm. Al-Fadhl began looking at her and she at him, so the Messenger of Allah made al- Fadhl turn his face away from her. Jarir b. Abdullah narrates: “I asked the Messenger of Allah about the sudden glance (Nazrat al-Fuja'a), so he instructed me to look the other way.” It has been narrated from Ali (ra) that he said: “The Messenger of Allah _ told me: “Do not follow up the (first) glance with a second look. The first is permitted for you but not the second.”

These are the evidences of those who advocate Hijab and say that a woman's entire body is 'Awrah. However, they are evidences, which do not apply to the issue they are quoted for, because none of them relates to the subject at hand. As for the Ayah of Hijab and the verse "stay in your houses", there is absolutely no connection between them and the wives of the Muslims. Both are specific to the wives of the Messenger _ as the verse explicitly indicates when it is read in full. It constitutes a single verse

interlinked by words and meaning. The (full) text of the Ayah is:

"Oh you who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses, except when permission is given to you for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation. But when you are invited, enter, and when you have taken your meal, disperse, without staying for a conversation. Verily, such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet, and he is shy of (asking) you (to go), but Allah is not shy of telling you the truth. And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen (Hijab) that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not (right) for you that you should annoy the Messenger of Allah, nor that you should ever marry his wives after him. Verily! With Allah that shall be an enormity". [Al- Ahzab: 53]

So the verse is a text concerning the wives of the Prophet _ and is specific only to them. It has no connection to the wives of the Muslims or to any woman other than the wives of the Messenger _. Supporting the fact that this verse is specific to the wives of the Messenger _ is the narration from 'Aisha(ra) who said: “I was eating food (Hais) with the Prophet _ in a dish. Umar passed by, so the Prophet _ invited him in and he ate. My finger touched his, Umar said: ‘Had my view about you (the Prophets wives) been taken, no one should have seen you. Then the seclusion (Hijab verse) was revealed’”. This is also supported by the narration that Umar said: “O Messenger of Allah, the righteous person and the Fajir one are admitted to you. Have you not secluded the mothers of the believers?” Then Allah revealed the verse of al-Hijab. Also it was narrated that Umar passed by the Prophet's wives while they were with the women in the Mosque, he said: “If you secluded yourselves you would have status over the women as your husband has the status over the men.” Zainab (may Allah be pleased with her) said “O son of al-Khattab! Indeed you're more concerned about us while the Wahy comes down in our houses.” It was not

long after that, that the Ayah of Hijab was revealed. Therefore, the text of the Ayah and these Ahadith are definite in meaning that they were revealed regarding the wives of the Prophet _ and for none other. As for the verse: “And stay in your houses”, it is also specific to the wives of the Messenger _. The following is the complete text: "Oh wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women. If you keep your duty (to Allah), be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire, but speak in a fitting manner. And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves as in the days of ignorance (Jahiliyya), and perform As-Salat, and give Zakat and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, Oh members of the household (of the Prophet) and to purify you with a thorough purification". [Al- Ahzab: 32-33]

Thus, it is explicit that the verse was specifically revealed concerning the Prophets wives because the speech is addressed to them and is specific to them; "Oh wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women". There cannot be a text more informative and indicative than the fact that this verse was revealed concerning the Prophet's wives and that it is particular to them.

This understanding is confirmed in the last part of the speech of Allah at the end of the verse itself; "Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, Oh members of the household (of the Prophet) and to purify you with a thorough purification" [ Al- Ahzab: 33]

It is clear that this description is specific to the wives of the Prophet and that He has instructed them with the foregoing in order to remove from them the rijs and purify them because they belong to the household of the Prophet. This has also been confirmed by the verse that directly follows it. After His _ saying: "to purify you with a thorough purification", Allah _ says: "And remember (Oh you members of the Prophets household, that which is recited in your houses of the Verses of Allah and Al-Hikmah. Verily, Allah is Ever Most

Courteous, Well-Acquainted with all things" [Al- Ahzab: 34]

Thus, Allah _ reminds them that their houses are the cradle of revelation (Wahy) and He has commanded them not to forget what is recited in them from the Qur'an.

These two verses are clear in that they concern the Prophet's wives and that they are specific to them. There is no indication in any of the two verses that the command is intended for Muslim women other than the Prophet's wives.

There are yet other verses which are specific to the wives of the Messenger _ such as the saying of Allah _: "And nor that you should ever marry his wives after him". So it is not permitted for the Prophet's wives to marry after him contrary to the example of Muslim women who can get married after the death of their husbands. Both verses of Hijab are specific to the Prophet's wives just as the verse, which prohibits their marriage after the Prophet _. It is not correct to say in this context that what matters is that the expression is general and that it matters little that the cause is specific. And that the cause (Sabab) of the revelation of the verses is the Prophet’s wives but these verses are general (Aam) to the Prophet's wives and others. This is not true, because the cause (Sabab) of revelation is an event that has happened. Thus, the event is the cause (Sabab) of revelation. With regards to the situation here, the wives of the Messenger _ do not constitute an event that has happened, rather it is a case of a specific text that has been revealed concerning specific persons whose identity has been stated. Thus, Allah _ said: “Oh wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women.” He _ also said: “And when you ask them for anything you want.” The personal pronoun they (Hunna) refers to the Prophet's wives and designates them to the exclusion of others. And that is followed by Allah's saying: “And it is not (right) for you that you should annoy Allah's Messenger”, which informs us of the reason (Illa) for their veil (Hijab). All of this indicates that the two verses are texts that have come concerning the wives of the Messenger _. Therefore, the principle:What matters is the generality of expression and not the specificity of the cause (Al-'ibra bi 'umum al'lafz la bi khusus as-sabab) does not apply to these two verses.

Similarly, it should not be said that the speech (Khitab) to the wives of the Messenger is an address to Muslim women because the fact that a specific address for a specific person is a speech for the believers only pertains to the Messenger Muhammad _. It does not include his wives. Therefore, the speech (Khitab) to the Messenger _ is speech to the believers. As for the address to his wives, it is specific to them because only the Messenger _ is the object of emulation in each address, action or silence, as long as it does not include those things that are particular to him. As for the wives of the Messenger they are not the object of emulation because Allah _ says: "Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example" [Al- Ahzab: 21]

It is not right that the Prophet's wives should be emulated, in the sense that an action is done because they did it, or an attribute should be possessed because they have been characterised with it. This only pertains to the Messenger _ because he _ doesn't follow anything but the revelation. Likewise, it should not be said that since they are the wives of the Messenger and they are pure, and since the revelation has been recited in their houses and they have been required to seclude (Hijab) themselves, then other Muslim women by greater reason (Bab-awla) should be required to stay in seclusion (Hijab). This cannot be claimed for two reasons:

Firstly: this judgement is not by way of greater reason because the (principle) of greater reason (Al-awla) is that Allah forbids a small issue

which then becomes prohibition of a large issue by greater reason (Min babawla), such as the saying of Allah _:

"Say not to them a word of disrespect (uff)" [Al- Isra: 23]

Thus, by greater reason a person should not beat his parents. The principle of greater reason is understood from the context of the statement such as the saying of Allah:_ "Among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is he who, if entrusted with a qintar (of wealth), will readily pay it back; and among them there is he who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it". [Al- Imran: 75]

The payment of less than a qintar is by greater reason and the non-payment of more than a silver coin (Dinar) is by greater reason. The verse of Hijab is not of this type because the sequence of the verse does not indicate anything other than the Prophet's wives nor does it indicate any other understanding. The expression 'wives of the Prophet' is a defective noun which cannot have any other understanding (particularly an opposite understanding). The statement is thus specific to the thing for which the text has come and does not extend to anyone else or have any other meaning. There is absolutely no issue arising in the verse by way of greater reason, whether in terms of the wording of the verse or its sequence. Secondly: those two verses are an instruction to specific persons who have been identified by their particular attributes. The instruction, therefore, can be at no time for people other than them, nor for people superior or inferior to them, because it is a specific description. It is an instruction to the wives of the Messenger _, as they are not like any other women and because this action annoys the Messenger. The application of the principle: ‘What matters is the generality of expression and not the specificity of the cause' has been disproved as well as the question of emulating the wives of the Messenger _. Additionally the consideration of people other than the Prophet's wives by greater reason has also been refuted, and it has been established that the text is definite in its reference to the wives of the Messenger _.It follows therefore that those two verses are specific to the wives of the Messenger _ and they definitely do not include Muslim women in any way whatsoever. From this, it can be determined that Hijab is specific to the wives of the Messenger _ and the order to remain in the house is also specific to them. As for the second verse which is the saying of Allah _: “to draw their cloaks (Jalabeeb) all over their bodies”, it does not indicate veiling the face at all. Neither in terms of its wording (Mantuq) nor in terms of its understanding (Mafhum). Nor is there a word, which indicates this whether on its own, or as part of a sentence, assuming that the cause (Sabab) of revelation is correct. The verse says: "to draw their cloaks (Jalabeeb) all over their bodies". Its meaning is that women should cast from (Min) their cloaks over their persons and the preposition (Min) here is not used partatively but only to explain (Lil-bayan) that they should cast it over their persons. To lower the covering means to let it drape down. To lower the clothing means to let the clothing drape down, and they lowered their clothing means they let it drape down. The Jilbab is a cover (Milhafa), used to conceal a dress and other items of clothing. It can also be clothing which covers the entire body. It is stated in the al-Qamus (dictionary of) al-Muhit: that the Jilbab, is in the form of the Sirdab or the Sinmar, which is the gown or a large garment for women under the cover (Milhafa), which is that which conceals her clothing like a cover (Milhafa). Al-Jawhari has stated in al-Sihah (another dictionary) that: The Jilbab is the cover (Milhafa) and some say it is a sheet (Mulaah). Jilbab has been mentioned in the Hadith with the meaning of Mulaah (sheet) which the woman wrapped over her clothes. It has been narrated on the authority of Umm Atiyya (ra.): “We were ordered to bring out our menstruating women and veiled women in the religious gatherings and invocation of Muslims on the two 'Eid festivals. These menstruating women were to keep away from prayer, witnessing the blessing and call to the Muslims. I asked, “O Messenger of Allah! What if one of us does not have a Jilbab?” He said, ‘Let her wear the Jilbab of her sister.’” Which means that she did not have a garment to wear over her clothes to go out in. So, the Prophet ordered her to borrow one from her sister, which she could wear over her dress. The verse makes it clear that Allah _ has requested the Prophet _ to tell his wives and the wives and daughters of the Muslims to wear garments over their clothes which reach right down to the feet as evidenced by the narration of Ibn Abbas: “The Jilbab is the Rida (large sheet of cloth) which covers from top to bottom.” So the verse indicates that the Jilbab, which is a large garment should be draped down to the bottom (feet), and does not indicate anything other than this. If this is the case, how is it possible to understand that to cast their outer garments (Jalabeeb) over their persons means to cast their garments over their faces? No matter how much the word Yudnina (to drape down) or the word Jilbab is interpreted within the limits of the linguistic (Ma'na loghawi) and juristic meaning, the verse stipulates the draping down of the garment. Draping can only mean draping it down to the bottom (feet) and not raising it to the head. Therefore, there is no evidence in this verse to prove Hijab. Nor is there even a semblance of an evidence, by any stretch of the imagination. The words and sentences of the Qur'an are interpreted according to their linguistic and jurisprudence meanings, it is incorrect to

interpret them in any other way. The linguistic meaning clearly indicates that women have been ordered to caste their outer garments (Jalabeeb) over their persons, to let them lower their garment over their clothes to the floor until the feet are covered. This meaning, in terms of letting the Jilbab drape down, is found in the noble Hadith. It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah _ said: “On the day of judgement, Allah will not look with mercy towards the one who trails his garment behind him in haughty pride”. Umm Salama asked: “what are the women to do with the hems of their dresses?” He _ answered: “Let them increase their hems the length of a hand span”. She rejoined: “Then their feet will be uncovered! He then replied: “Let them increase a fore arm’s length and no more.” [Tirmidhi]

This is with respect to the verses that are used as evidence by those who claim that Hijab for Muslim women has been decreed by Allah. As for the Ahadith which are used to prove Hijab they do not indicate this.

The Prophet _ said: “If anyone of you (the women) has a (male) slave who wants to free himself (by buying himself) and he possessed the price, you should seclude yourself from him”. And due to what was narrated from Umm Salama who said: Hafsa and I

were sitting with the Prophet _ when Ibn Umm Maktum asked permission to enter. So the Prophet said: “seclude yourselves from him”. So I said “O Messenger of Allah. He is blind, he cannot see.” He _ said: “Are you both also blind. Can you both not see him?”. Abu Dawood narrated that: Al- Fadhl b. Abbas at the time was the Prophet's riding partner when a woman from Banu Khath'am came seeking a hukm. al-Fadhl began to look at her and she at him so the Messenger of Allah made al-Fadhl turn his face away from her. Jarir b. Abdullah narrated: I asked the Messenger of Allah about the sudden look, so he instructed me to look the other way. It has been narrated from Ali that he said: The Messenger of Allah _ told me: “Do not follow up the (first) glance with a second look. The first is permitted for you but not the second.” There is no indication in these Ahadith that the Muslim women should seclude themselves. In particular, the Hadith of Umm Salama and the Prophet's requesting of Hafsa and her to seclude themselves, is daif (weak) and cannot be advanced as an evidence. In any case, the Hadith is specific to the wives of the Prophet as it is a text concerning Umm Salama and Hafsa. As for what has been narrated that Aisha said: “The horseman used to pass by us while we were with the Prophet _ wearing ihram clothes (of Hajj). If he came near one of us, we would draw our jilbabs from our head down to our face. Once he walked past, we would uncover our (face).” This conflicts with what has been narrated by Bukhari on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Prophet _ said: “The Muhrima (a woman in the state of Ihram) should not cover her face, or wear gloves.” Ibn Hajar in the Fath al-Bari has stated: “The veil (Niqab) or Khimar is fastened from the nose or below the eyes.” So the Hadith of 'Aisha (ra) states that women in the state of Ihram had covered their faces when a group of horsemen passed them. The Hadith

of Ibn Umar indicates the prohibition of wearing a Niqab which only conceals the lower half of the face. How can this be reconciled with respect to completely covering the face by lowering the garment over the face. With respect to the two Ahadith it becomes clear that the Hadith of 'Aisha is defective in that the narration is of Mujahid from Aisha. Yahya b. Said al- Qattan has mentioned that Mujahid did not directly hear from Aisha. As for the Hadith of Ibn Umar which has been narrated by Bukhari it is Sahih. Aisha's Hadith, therefore, is turned down because it is weak and conflicts with an authentic (Sahih) Hadith. Hence it is not used as an evidence. As for the Hadith in which al-Fadhl b. al Abbas is present, there is no indication in it to make Hijab compulsory. On the contrary, it is an evidence that Hijab is not an obligation because the Khath'ami woman was asking the Prophet about a matter whilst her face was unveiled. This is evidenced by the fact that al- Fadhl was looking at her. Another variant of this Hadith states: “Thus, the Prophet took hold of al-Fadhls (beard) and turned his face away from the other side.” This story has been narrated by Ali b. Abuy Talib who adds: “al-Abbas said to the Prophet: ‘O Messenger of Allah, why did you turn your cousins neck?’ He _ replied: ‘I saw a young man and a young woman in such a situation that I feared what effect Shaytan might have upon them’”. The Hadith of the Khath'ami woman is an evidence for the absence of Hijab not an evidence for it. This is because the Prophet _ was looking at her whilst her face was uncovered. As for the Prophets turning of al-Fadhl's gaze away, this is because he noticed that he was looking at her, and she at him, with desire as evidenced by the narration of Ali: “I feared what effect Shaytan might have upon them”. Therefore, he _ diverted al-Fadhl's sight because he was looking at her with desire and not merely looking. The desirous look, even if it is at the face and hands, is Haram. As for the sudden look (Nazrat al-faja'a) the Prophet ordered Jarir to turn his gaze or lower it. This is the type of lowering of the gaze which is mentioned in the Qur'an: "Tell the believing men to lower from their gaze" [An -Nur: 30] What is intended here is the sudden look at other than the hands and face which constitutes the 'Awrah and not looking at the hands and face. This is because looking at the hands and face is permitted irrespective of whether it is sudden or not, as evidenced by the permissibility of looking at a woman in the aforementioned Hadith of al-Khath'amiyya. This is also proven by the fact that the Prophet _ used to look at the faces of women when they gave Bay’a to him and when he preached to them. All of which indicates that what one needs to be careful about is the sudden look at other than the hands and face. As for the Hadith of Ali: “Do not follow up the (first) glance with a second look.” This is a prohibition from looking repeatedly and not from the mere look.

Thus, no evidence can be found to oblige Hijab (face covering) in the Ahadith which have been quoted by those who claim Allah _ has legislated Hijab. Therefore, it becomes clear that there is no evidence to say Allah _ has made Hijab obligatory for Muslim women or that the hands and the face should be considered as 'Awrah, whether inside or outside prayer. The evidences which they quote have no strong reason for concluding that Hijab is compulsory. They are weak in narration and weak in reasoning. As for the hands and face not being part of the 'Awrah and the permission for women to go out to any marketplace and roadway with her hands and face uncovered, this is proven from the Qur'an and Hadith. As for the Qur'an Allah _ says: "And they do not show off their charm (Zeena) except only that which is apparent and let them draw their head coverings (khumur) over their necks and bosoms (juyub)" [An- Nur: 31]

Allah _forbade believing women from displaying their charms (Zeena) i.e. forbade them from showing the place of their charm (Zeena) since this is what the prohibition is from. He excluded from the place of their charms that which is apparent from it, and this is an explicit exception. This means that there is a part of the woman's charm which is shown, and does not come under the (general) prohibition of women displaying the places of their charms. Nothing more remains to be said about this. So, Allah has forbidden women from displaying their Zeena except that which is apparent from it. As for which parts are intended by: "except only that which is apparent from it" [An- Nur: 31] its interpretation must be referred to two matters. First, to the transmitted tafseer (Tafseer Manqul) and secondly to what was understood from the expression: "that which is apparent from it"; and its application to what the Muslim women used to display in the presence of the Prophet _, in his time and in the time of the revelation of this verse.

As for what has been transmitted, it is narrated that Ibn Abbas in the tafseer of this verse took (the expression) "that which is apparent from it" to mean the hands and face. This opinion became commonly held by the mufassireen. Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari says: “The most correct of these views is that which states that the intended meaning is the hands and face”, and Qurtubi said: “Since the face and hands are, by custom and during worship such as in Hajj and Salat, most ordinarily displayed then the exception must refer to them.” Imam al-Zamakhshri said: “A woman has no choice but to do things with her hands and by uncovering her face especially when she has to testify, is being tried, is getting married, or when she is forced to walk in the streets displaying her feet, especially those amongst them who are poor.” This is the meaning of: "except that which is apparent from it".

As for what is understood from the expression "that which is apparent from it", it is clear that what used to be apparent in the time of the revelation of this verse is the hands and face. Women used to show their face and hands in his _ presence and he did not object to their doing so. They used to uncover their face and hands in the market or on the road. Such incidents are innumerable. Here are a few examples:

1. Jabir b. Abd Allah said: “I attended prayer on Eid day with the Messenger of Allah _. He commenced with the prayer, before the Khutbah, without any Adhan or Iqamah. Then he rose, leaning on Bilal and addressing those present before him, commanded them to fear Allah and exhorted them to obey Him. He further admonished and warned them. Then he moved on until he came to the women whom he addressed saying: “Give charity, for verily most of you are fuel for the hellfire”, whereupon there arose from among the middle ladies congregation, a dark-cheeked woman who said: “Why is that, Oh Messenger of Allah”? He replied: “Because you women make too many complaints, and you refuse to acknowledge your husband’s good treatment”. Upon hearing this the women began tossing their jewellery in charity upon Bilal's (outspread) cloth.”

2. Narrated by 'Ata'a b. Rabah who said: “Ibn Abbas said to me; Shall I show you a woman who will go to Paradise (Jannah)”? I said: “Yes.” He said: “This black woman came to Prophet _ and said: 'I have epilepsy and I get uncovered, so make dua to Allah for me'. So he _ said to her: “If you will be patient the Paradise (Jannah) shall be yours. And if you want I will make dua to Allah to cure you”. So she said: 'I will be patient'. She said: 'I get uncovered so make dua to Allah that I don't uncover myself'. So he _ made dua for her.”

3. Narrated by Fatimah b. Qays that Abu Amr b. Hafs divorced her irrevocably (by three pronouncements) when he was away from home. She went to the Messenger of Allah _ and mentioned that to him. So he commanded her to spend the Iddah (waiting period) in the house of Umm Shareek, but then said: “That is a woman whom my companions visit. So you had better spend this period in the house of Ibn Umm Maktum, for he is a blind man, so you can take off your garments and he will not see you”. Thus the Prophet _ accepted the daughter of Qays to be seen by men when he ordered her to spend the Iddah in the house of Umm Shareek. But he did not accept her to take of her garments in the house of Umm Shareek while this is visited by men, otherwise what is prohibited might appear from her, so he ordered her to move and spend her iddah in the house of Ibn Umm Maktum.

4. Abu Bakr narrated on the authority of Ibn Jurayj who said that 'Aisha said: “My cousin came while she was wearing her ornaments. The Prophet _ came in and turned away from her (when he saw her). So I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! She is only my cousin, a mere maiden.” He said: “Oh Aisha, when a woman reaches puberty then it is not permitted that any part of her body should be seen (by non-mahrams) except her face and what is below this”. So he clenched his arm just above the joint of the hand leaving a space in-between for another fist to be clenched.”

5. What indicates that the hand is not part of the 'Awrah is the Prophet's handshaking of women in the Bay’a. Umm 'Atiyya said: “We gave our Bay’a to the Messenger of Allah _, so he _ recited to us they should associate none with Allah and he forbade us from wailing (for the dead). A woman amongst us withdrew her hand saying: ‘so and so woman has made me happy and I want to reward her’, he _ said nothing, the woman went, then came back”. This Hadith indicates that women used to give Bay’a by hand because this woman withdrew her hand after extending it for the Bay’a. The fact the Hadith states that the woman withdrew her hand when she heard the terms of the pledge (Bay’a), demonstrates clearly that the Bay’a used to take place by hand and that the Prophet _ used to take the pledge by his noble hand. As for what has been narrated about 'Aisha (ra) that she said: “The hand of the Messenger of Allah _ did not touch the (hand of) any woman other than his own wives.” This is an opinion of Aisha and an expression of the limit of her knowledge. If we compare 'Aisha's statement with this Hadith of Umm 'Atiyya then the latter's Hadith is preferred. This is because it specifies an action which happened in the presence of the Messenger _ and indicates an action of the Messenger _, thus it is preferable to a mere opinion of 'Aisha.

That is why transmitters preferred Umm 'Atiyyaa's Hadith. They adopted it and permitted a man to shake the hand of a woman. These five incidents are well established in the Ahadith which unambiguously indicate that what was shown of women is the hands and face. The fourth Hadith indicates that the Messenger _ diverted his view away from the adorned woman because she was displaying more than what is apparent from it. Then he explained to her that it is not permitted for her to display her Zeena except her hands and face. This shows that the hands and face are not part of the 'Awrah whether in or outside prayer because the verse is of general import (Aam): "And they do not show off their harms (Zeena) except only that which is apparent of it" [An- Nur: 31]

As for the verse which comes after, its understanding also indicates that the hands and face are not part of the 'Awrah'. Allah _ says: "And to draw their head-coverings (khumur) over their necks and v-neck (juyub)".[An- Nur: 31]

Khumur is the plural of Khimar and it is used to cover the head. Juyub is the plural of Jayb. It is the v-neck. Thus, Allah _ has ordered that the Khimar should be worn round the neck and chest. This indicates the obligation to cover both areas. But He did not order that the Khimar should be worn over the face, thereby indicating the face is not part of the 'Awrah. Jayb does not mean the chest as some would assume. Rather it is the v-neck, the opening which is around the neck and the upper portion of the chest. Wearing the Khimar over the Jayb means wearing it around the shirt collar from the neck and chest. So, by ordering the covering of the head, which includes the neck and chest, this excludes the face, indicating that it is not part of the 'Awrah. Consequently, Hijab (face covering) is non existent and Allah _ did not legislate the Hijab.

This is in terms of the evidences from the Qur'an. In addition these are evidences from the Hadith which show Allah _ has not legislated Hijab and that the hands and face are not part of the 'Awrah. Abu Dawood narrates on the authority of 'Aishah (ra), that Asmaa bint Abi Bakr entered the quarters of Allah's Messenger wearing thin clothes. The Messenger _ turned his face away and said: “O Asmaa, if the woman reaches puberty, it is not allowed to be seen from her except this and this, and he pointed to his face and hands”. Abu Dawood narrates on the authority of Qatada that the Prophet _ said: “When a young lady begins to menstruate, it is not correct that anything should be seen of her except her face and hands excluding the wrist.” Al-Bayhaqi narrates on the authority of Asma' bint 'Umays that she said: “The Messenger of Allah entered the house of 'Aisha bint Abu Bakr while her sister, Asmaa bint Abu Bakr, was with her. She was

wearing a Shammi (Syrian) dress with wide sleeves. When the Messenger of Allah _ saw her he got up and went out.” 'Aisha said: “leave the room for the Messenger of Allah has seen something he does not like.” So she withdrew. Then the Messenger of Allah _ entered and 'Aisha (ra) inquired as to why he stood to leave? He _ said: “Did you not see what she was wearing? It is not permitted for anything to be seen of a Muslim woman except this and this.” He took his sleeves and covered the upper part of his hands until nothing could be seen of his hands except his fingers. Then he lifted his hands to his temples until only the face could be seen.”

These Ahadith are clear that the hands and face are not part of the 'Awrah. They are also explicit that Allah _ has not legislated the covering of the hands and face, and He has not legislated Hijab. If anything like that was legislated then it would have contradicted the text of these Ahadith which are not open to any other explanation (Tafseer) or interpretation (Taweel.) On the contrary, they clearly and unambiguously show that the Muslim woman used to go out to the market with her face and hands uncovered, and conversed with non-mahram men whilst her face and hands were revealed. And she made all lawful transactions with people such as buying, selling, renting, leasing, right of pre-emption, representation, whilst her hands and face were uncovered. They also show that Allah _ has not legislated Hijab except for the wives of the Messenger _. Even though the view concerning Hijab is an Islamic opinion because it has a semblance of an evidence (Shubhat al-Daleel)and Mujtahid-Imams amongst the madhahib have taken this view, the semblance of a daleel which they use is untenable with hardly any credible reasoning apparent in it. What remains is an issue which some Mujtahidin have subscribed to, namely, that Hijab has been legislated for women due to the fear of temptation (Fitna.) Thus, they say that the woman has been forbidden from revealing her face not because it is 'Awrah but due to the fear of causing temptation Fitna.

This view is not valid from a number of angles: Firstly for the prohibition of unveiling the face due to the fear of Fitna, there is no Shari'ah provision whether in the Kitab, Sunnah, Ijma’a of the Sahabah and nor is there a Shar’a provision from a Shari'ah reason (Illa Shariyya) according to which an analogy is made. Consequently, this opinion has no Shari'ah value nor is it considered a Shari'ah rule (Hukm Shar'i), because a Shari'ah rule is the speech of the legislator, but the prohibition of unveiling the face is not included in the speech of the legislator. It is also known that the Shari'ah evidences have come in complete contradiction to it, and that the Ayah and Ahadith unconditionally permit the uncovering of the face and hands without being restricted by something nor being specified by a particular circumstance. Thus, the opinion that showing the face is forbidden and it is obligatory to conceal it, is an opinion which prohibits that which Allah permitted. It is an obligation that Allah _ the Lord of the Worlds has not decreed. Thus, this opinion beyond not being considered as a Shari'ah rule, it invalidates the Shari'ah rules that are established by clear text. Secondly, making the fear of Fitna a reason (Illa) for prohibiting the unveiling of the face and for the obligation to conceal it is an opinion for which there is no Shari'ah text whether explicitly (Sarahatan), by indication (Dalalatan), extraction (Istanbatan) or by analogy (Qiyas). Therefore, under no circumstances is it a Shari'ah reason (Illa shariyya). Rather it is a rational reason (Illa Aqliyya) which is of no consideration with regards to the Shari'ah rules. However, what is considered is the Shari'ah reason (Illa Shariyya) and none other. Accordingly, no weight is given to the fear of Fitna in legislating the prohibition of showing the face or obligating the concealment of it because it is not present in the Shari'ah.

Thirdly the principle of: 'the means to a Haram is (itself) prohibited' (Alwasila il al-Haram muharrama), does not apply to prohibiting the showing of the face due to fear of temptation (Fitna). This is because this principle requires that two conditions are met; first, the means (Wasila) must lead to a Haram by the least amount of doubt (Bi ghalabat al-zann), and that it must be the cause of the Haram such that it definitely produces the effect and does not deflect from it. Second, there must be a text prohibiting what the means (Wasila) leads to, and it is not to be prohibited by the mind. This is not present with regards to showing the face in fear of temptation. For they say the face should be veiled in fear of temptation and not because of the occurrence of a temptation. Consequently, showing the face due to the fear of temptation does not apply to the principle of forbidding the cause of a Haram; assuming that the temptation is prohibited by the Shari'ah for the one tempted by it, because it does not definitely lead to it. And, there is no text making the fear of temptation Haram. On the contrary, the Shar’a did not make the temptation itself Haram for the one who is the object of temptation of people. Rather, the Shar’a prohibited the one who looks from watching with temptation, and it did not prohibit it for the one who is looked at. Abu Dawood narrates that Al-Fadhl b. Abbas was the Prophet’s riding partner at the time when a woman from Banu Khath’am came seeking a hukm (opinion), and al-Fadhl began to look at her and she at him so the Messenger of Allah made him turn his face from her. i.e. he turned the face of al-Fadhl away from her, as evidenced by another variant of this Hadith: Thus, the Prophet took hold of al-Fadhl’s beard and turned his face away from the other side. This story has been narrated by Ali b. Aby Talib to which he adds: “Abbas said to the Prophet: ‘O Messenger of Allah, why did you turn your cousins neck?’ He _ replied: ‘I saw a young man and a young woman in such a situation that I feared what effect Shaytan might have upon them.’” It is clear from this that the Messenger _ turned the face of al-Fadhl away from the Khath'ami woman. He did not order her to cover her face. Her face was visible to him. If temptation was Haram for the one who was the object of temptation then the Messenger _ would have ordered the Khath'ami woman to veil her face after it had transpired that al-Fadhl had looked at her, with the look of desire. However, he did not order her to do this but he turned the neck of al-Fadhl, which indicates that the prohibition is for the one who is looking and not for the one who is looked at. Therefore, regarding the prohibition of people's desire for the woman, there is no text which prohibits it upon the woman, by whom people are tempted. Rather the text says it is not prohibited for her. Therefore, the matter which it leads to is not Haram even if it had definitely led to it. However, it is permitted for the state which is working to look after the affairs of the people to move specific individuals away from the view of those who are infatuated by them, in order to make the one who temptsothers inaccessible to people, if the infatuation for that person is widespread. As Umar b. al-Khattab did with regards to Nasr b. Hajjaj when he exiled him to Basra, because women used to be tempted by his good looks. This is general to men and women. So it should not be said that women must be forbidden from unveiling their faces due to the fear of temptation, even due to the occurrence of temptation. This cannot be said by using the principle of 'the means to a Haram is itself Haram'.