|
Post by Deoband on Jun 27, 2018 21:13:34 GMT
WOMEN, MOSQUES, EIDGAH, AND THE DECEPTION OF FEMINIST CHARLATAN SCHOLARS In recent days a whole glut of feminist deviate “scholars” have come crawling out of some hellish hole somewhere, clamouring for women to attend the Eidgah and Masjids. These charlatans masquerading as scholars quote Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Fuqaha (jurists) extremely selectively and with a great deal of dishonesty. In due course, as and when time permits, we shall, insha-Allah, expose and refute all their acts of deception and chicanery, and their complete misrepresentation of the teachings of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which they filter through the lens of Kuffaar norms and values to which they (the feminist deviates) are pathetically enslaved.
In the meantime, for the benefit of sincere seekers of truth who may have been swayed into a state of confusion by the toxic but enticing Ghutha (trash) vomited out in unison by these feminine deviates, we release this brief notice to apprise the Ummah of the Haqq and to shed some light on the position of a few of the Fuqaha who are quoted deceptively by these charlatans masquerading as scholars.
We emphasize categorically that according to the command of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), and ALL the Fuqaha of Ummah, even including the few Fuqaha selectively and deceptively quoted by these feminist charlatans, ALL women today must be barred from the Masjids. This is the only valid ruling of the Shariah on this issue. And this ruling applies to an infinitely greater degree in this worst of eras in which both women and men fail in the most absolute manner in fulfilling the whole host of essential and non-negotiable pre-conditions set by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself.
Amongst the Fuqaha parroted by these feminists, Allamah Ibn Hazm features prominently. Allamah Ibn Hazm’s fatwa on women’s attendance at the Masjids is a Shaadh (anomalous, isolated and erroneous) view which has been ignored, dismissed and rejected by the Fuqaha throughout the ages. It is based on a grave slip of enormous magnitude which we shall expound on in detail in future insha-Allah.
The feminist charlatan scholars whose satanic methodology amounts simply to scouring through our tradition in order to excavate what accords closest to the norms and values of their Kuffaar masters, have naturally pounced on this Shaadh fatwa. One notorious feminist Guru, Akram Nadwi, has even gone as far as translating and publishing it as a book for the “benefit” (i.e. damnation) of the masses. We intend soon to lay bare the acts of blatant distortion (Tahreef) and chicanery of this “Shaykh ul-Hadith” regarding whom there is Ijma’ (agreement) amongst the feminine charlatan “scholars” on his scholarship, standing and integrity.
Despite the isolated and erroneous status of Allamah Ibn Hazm’s position on this issue, we shall demonstrate in detail that even according to him, ALL women today must be barred from the Masjids. For now, we list four aspects of Allamah Ibn Hazm’s position which the feminist fraudsters who cite him seek to conceal:
Continued in link:reliablefatwas.com/eidgah-and-feminism/
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jun 30, 2018 19:33:37 GMT
The following page, "Eidgah and Feminism", has been updated with an elaboration of the presence of Hadhrat Aatikah bint Zayd (radhiyallah anha) in the Masjid at the time of the martyrdom of her husband, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), an incident which has predictably attracted the attention of feminist charlatan "scholars" and also part-time "Hanafis" with feminist tendencies.
|
|
|
Post by abuyusuf on Jul 2, 2018 11:41:39 GMT
My post was deleted.
To Deoband or anyone else who insisist that women can only go to the masjid foul smelling:
The requirements of dress and not wearing perfume etc are all the same whether a woman is going masjid or anywhere else. So do women have to be foul smelling every time they leave home to go anywhere? Do you all ensure that your women are foul smelling when in the haram in Makkah, and when going to the haram in Madinah? I am sure most women don't know of this requirement over there, so why don't we see this being taught in Hajj programs?
Also please stop spreading misinformation that all madhabs ban all women from the masjid. Just ask some ulama from the other madhabs and let them give you their madhabs'verdict. All do not say they must be foul smelling either.
Also why according, to what Mufti Taqi Uthamani mentioned, did Abu Bakr and Ali R.A. give permission for women to go to the Eid Salah? Why according to narrations in Hayatus Sahaba did Umar R.A. , Uthman R.A. and Ali R.A. arrange for women to read taraweeh behind the Imam at the Masjid?
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jul 4, 2018 10:48:31 GMT
RESPONSE TO AN OPEN LETTER BY A FEMINIST SISTER TO THE JAMIAT KZN Excerpt from the article "WOMEN, MOSQUES, EIDGAH AND THE DECEPTION OF FEMINIST CHARLATAN SCHOLARS":
"....Consider the example of one lost specimen of the Naaqisatul Aql (deficient in intellect) species from South Africa who deemed it fit to write an open letter to the Ulama, protesting her own disqualification and the disqualification of the rest of her kind, from attending the Masjid.
Although her letter does carry a great deal of stench with it, we can confidently claim that this shameless woman fails miserably in meeting the vital condition of “Tafilaat”, accurately defined as “foul-smelling” by her own authority whom she refers to, Allamah Ibn Hazm. We can safely assume that she walks openly and often in the middle of the path unnecessarily, in violation of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explicit command. We can safely assume that she fails miserably in fulfilling the condition of wearing “al-bizlah” – old, tattered and worn out garments – which is listed amongst many other prerequisites for attendance at the Masjid, by Allamah Ibn Qudamah whom she refers to as an authority on this issue. We are confident she fails in fulfilling the requirement of being “mutaghayyarutur reeh” – possessing a gone-off, altered for the worse smell – which is listed approvingly amongst the pre-conditions by Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani whom she refers to.
According to ALL the authorities whom she herself cites, she qualifies with flying colours for a complete prohibition from the Masjid – a lifetime ban and possibly an eternal one if she fails to repent and make amends immediately. We console her, however, by stating that she is not unique. Her state of complete disqualification from attending the Masjid is shared by all the women of the world, and have been for many a century. The Fatwas of permissibility of the Fuqaha which she refers to deceptively are addressed exclusively to a group of women who are completely non-existent today.
In her foul-smelling letter (tafilat), riddled with ridiculous blunders, more likely stemming from an abnormally intense Naqs (deficiency) of her Aql (intellect) rather than a deliberate attempt at distortion, she insinuates that there exists an ikhtilaaf or contradiction between the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) enacting the prohibition, and between certain Fatwas of the Salaf and reports of women’s attendance, such as the presence of Hadhrat Aatikah bint Zayd (radhiyallahu anha) in the Masjid at the time of the murder of her husband, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), when in reality there is no contradiction.
It is evident that the prohibition enacted by the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) was implemented in stages. Initially the Shawwaab (non-elderly women) were prohibited, who obviously would, by human nature, have been the first to violate the pre-conditions set by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and also be the first to be involved in the violation of the numerous commands addressed to the men.
In this regard, The Hanbali authority, Allamah Ibn Hubayrah, states in his book on Ijma’ (consensus):
“They (the Fuqaha of ALL four Madh-habs) are in agreement that it is reprehensible for Shawwaab (non-elderly women) to attend the congregational prayers of men.” (Al-Ijma’)
Imam Al-Kasani, the Hanafi authority states:
“They (the Fuqaha) are all agreed that there is no concession for Shawwab (non-elderly woman) to emerge for Jumu’ah, the two Eids, and anything from the (congregational) prayers.” (Badaa-i us-Sanaa-i)
On the other hand, the Ajaa-iz (women of great grandma age) during the age of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen had not yet degenerated to the degree which demanded the same ruling of prohibition that was applied with respect to the Shawaab (non-elderly women). The Ajaa-iz, in general, would still only emerge as commanded by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the state of being “Tafilaat” – smelling only of body odour as a result of not having applied any perfume, scented lotions, soaps, deodorant, cosmetics, and the like (ghair mutatayyibaat), to combat the odour which the body naturally emits. The Ajaa-iz, in general, would still emerge covered entirely in baggy, coarse, old and tattered garments. They would still emerge only in the intense darkness of Fajr and Isha times during which none would recognise the other. They would still adhere to the edges of the paths and take routes that were the most isolated. They would still lower their gazes, never daring to sneak a glance at any Granddaddies who they might happen to pass by on an isolated chance encounter, nor would any Great Granddaddies attempt to sneak a glance at the dark tattered-garmented shadows scurrying on the peripheries. And, the Ajaa-iz, along with the Granddaddies would still adhere largely to all the other measures instituted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhis salaam) which were designed perfectly to prevent free-mixing to and from the Masjids, and eliminate any chance of fitnah.
Is there even the slightest resemblance between the pious elderly women of that age and the women and men of this worst of eras in which every single prerequisite for women’s attendance at the Masjids, instituted by none other than Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself, is violated intentionally and with intransigent pre-meditation, en masse and at the behest of the Ulama-e-Soo’, to a degree never before witnessed in the entire history of this Ummah? The author of the open letter and the rest of the feminist charlatan “scholars” are most contumacious (pig-heads) if they are able to hallucinate that their womenfolk are anything like the Great Grandmas of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen.
Since the majority of the Ajaa-iz were still abiding by the prerequisites for attendance at the Masjids, especially during Fajr and Isha times, they still qualified for coming under the purview of the Hadith:
“Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from the masjids of Allah, and they must not emerge EXCEPT that they are Tafilaat.”
The narrations in Bukhari mention specifically that Hadhrat Aatikah (radhiyallahu anha) would only emerge as “Tafilat” in the intense darkness of Fair and Isha times. In Uyoon al-Akhbaar of Ibn Qutaybah it is recorded that she was already well-advanced in age (“khalaa min sinnihaa“) when she married Hadhrat Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) very soon after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). Evidently then, she was an elderly woman of impeccable Taqwa (piety) and Wara’ (scrupulousness) who fulfilled perfectly all the prerequisite conditions for attending the Masjid.
Yet, despite qualifying for attendance at the Masjid in a manner no (non-sahabiah) woman would thereafter match, it is noteworthy that the Ghairah (an honourable, protective type of jealousy) of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), and the Ghairah of her husband after his martyrdom, Hadhrat Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu), constrained both of them to exhibit much reluctance in permitting Hadhrat Aatikah (radhiyallahu anha) to attend the Masjid. The narration in Bukhari specifically mentions the Ghairah of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) in this matter. Hadhrat Zubayr’s (radhiyallahu anhu) Ghairah compelled him to take the radical step of hiding incognito in ambush and slapping his wife in the dark on her way to the Masjid, on which she promptly returned back home vowing never to go to Masjid again, citing the reason that the people had become corrupt.
Where are the men today with the Ghairah of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu)?
While the Ghairah of these noble Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) manifested itself so vividly at an elderly wife of perfect piety attending the most sacred and safest of places during the most blessed of eras, fulfilling all the necessary prerequisites for attendance perfectly, with no chance of any strange men seeing her, nor her seeing any strange men, the cuckolds (Daayooth) of today feel not even the slightest pang of discomfort in their dead hearts while sending their wives in tight, colourful and fragrant “jilbaabs” daily to rub shoulders with strange men at the markets which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) branded as the “worst places on Earth”, to drop off and collect the children at the Kuffaar and so-called “Islamic” school runs, to “man” their shops and businesses serving strange men face to face, and to every other place where the rules of the Shariah which are perfectly designed to prevent fitnah, are violated terribly and inexcusably. Unfortunate circumstances constrained by genuine Shariah-based necessities (Darooraat), which might, on occasion, be unavoidable in Daarul Kufr (e.g. hospitalizations), should never eliminate Ghairah and the natural Imaani pain registered in the heart of the believer when unable to take remedial action, which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) described as a sign of the “weakest of Imaan”. In reality, no Imaan remains in the heart which fails to trigger the slightest pang of discomfort and distress when the divine Shariah is being violated.
While the narration of Hadhrat Aatikah bint Zayd (radhiyallahu anha) attending the Masjid, and the narrations of other elderly “Tafilaat” cited in a selectively half-baked manner by the feminist fraudsters, poses absolutely no problems for us, they backfire flatly in the faces of these charlatans, and reveal the Nafsaaniyaat – base desires fully submitted to Kuffaar values – that is the core foundational basis of their entire “Deen”.
On what other basis do these feminist Charlatans have the audacity to even cite Hadhrat Aatikah’s (radhiyallahu anha) presence at the Masjid at the time of the martyrdom of her husband (radhiyallahu anhu), leave aside using it as a Mustadal (proof), when this has reached us only in the form of a Munqati‘ (disconnected) narration, while the authenticity of every other authentic Hadith confirmed and accepted by the entire Ummah, but unpalatable to the Kuffaar, is assaulted on the slightest whimsical basis? On what other basis do these fraudsters reject the fully-connected and authentic narration of Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) as it has been understood by the entire Ummah? On what other basis do those fraudsters who concede the authenticity of the narration of Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) dismiss the understanding of the galaxy of Mujtahideen and Fuqaha of the entire Ummah regarding it, and proceed instead to scavenge like hungry dogs for an anomalous scrap or two such as the one dropped by Allamah Ibn Hazm which Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani merely regurgitated? On what other basis do these dishonest fraudsters who pounce on the anomalous couple of scraps left for them by Allamah Ibn Hazm and Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, then proceed to ignore, dismiss, and even commit blatant Tahreef (distort) of the rest of the teachings of these two Fuqaha, such as the prohibition of women emerging EXCEPT as “Tafilaat” which Allamah Ibn Hazm defines aptly as “foul-smelling and clothing“? On what basis do these feminist fraudsters ignore the fully-connected and authentic narration of one of the most senior Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu), expelling the women from the Masjid and instructing the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) and Tabi’een to “Keep them out from where Allah had expelled them from”?
And, on what basis do these quacks ignore and suppress the facts evident from the very narrations that they cite, such as the fact that Hadhrat Aatikah (radhiyallahu anha) was an elderly woman (al-Ajooz) of impeccable piety who would only attend the Masjid as “tafilat“, during times of intense darkness, fulfilling all the other necessary pre-conditions for attendance set by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with absolute perfection, and yet, still, the greatest of men on Earth at the time displayed so much disinclination and Ghairah towards her attendance?
In a similar manner, the fatwas of permissibility of some Shafi’i Fuqaha which are cited deceptively by the feminists today refer exclusively to age-old women (al-Ajooz) who no longer possess any desire for men, and whose face ridden with crinkles and wrinkles serve as a sufficient deterrent for Great Granddaddies. Imam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh), for example, who is quoted often by the fraudulent part-time “Hanafis” of this era, explicitly states that his Fatwa of permissibility is directed exclusively to al-Ajooz (women of great grandma age) who fulfil all the necessary conditions including wearing “al-bizlah” – old, worn-out, and tattered garments, and in the complete absence of fitnah, the greatest of which is the widespread violation of measures which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself had instituted to prevent any mixing whatsoever between men and women, to and from the Masjids.
Perhaps during Imam Nawawi’s era there still existed a few pockets in the Ummah, in which the great grandmas were still emerging “Tafilaat“, and both the men and women living in those isolated pockets were still able to fulfil all the other stringent pre-conditions set by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) including those designed perfectly to prevent any free-mixing whatsover enroute, to which Imam Nawawi’s fatwa may have borne some relevance...."
|
|
|
Post by abuyusuf on Jul 4, 2018 14:50:06 GMT
Can the Ulama here honestly and justly say if the above is a correct representation of what Hafiz Ibn Hajar As Qalani is saying?
The portion quoted above:
حديث أبي قتادة رفعه " إني لأقوم في الصلاة " الحديث وفيه " فأتجوز في صلاتي كراهية أن أشق على أمه " وقد تقدم شرحه في أبواب الإمامة ، قال ابن دقيق العيد : هذا الحديث عام في النساء ، إلا أن الفقهاء خصوه بشروط : منها أن لا تتطيب ، وهو في بعض الروايات وليخرجن تفلات قلت : هو بفتح المثناة وكسر الفاء أي غير متطيبات ، ويقال امرأة تفلة إذا كانت [ ص: 407 ] متغيرة الريح ، وهو عند أبي داود وابن خزيمة من حديث أبي هريرة وعند ابن حبان من حديث زيد بن خالد وأوله لا تمنعوا إماء الله مساجد الله ولمسلم من حديث زينب امرأة ابن مسعود " إذا شهدت إحداكن المسجد فلا تمسن طيبا " انتهى .
What Hafiz ibn Hajar himself says in the introduction to fath Ul bari:
"قَوْله وليخرجن تفلات التفل بِفَتْح الْفَاء الرَّائِحَة الكريهة وَالْمرَاد أَن لَا يتطيبن يُقَال هُوَ تفل أَي غير متطيب
"Regarding his (saw) saying 'let them go out tafilaat: tafal is an unpleasant odour. But the sense intended here is that they should not apply perfume. If one says 'He is tafil' it means he is without perfume"."
Why do the following Imams not mention foul smelling?
Ibn Qudama writes:
وقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : { لا تمنعوا إماء الله مساجد الله ، وليخرجن تفلات . يعني غير متطيبات } . رواه أبو داود ...but they may go out (to the mosque) while they are tafilaat, meaning that they not be wearing perfume.
Where does Imam Nawawi say tafilaat means foul smelling? Here he writes:
قَوْله صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ( لَا تَمْنَعُوا إِمَاء اللَّه مَسَاجِد اللَّه ) هَذَا وَشَبَهه مِنْ أَحَادِيث الْبَاب ظَاهِر فِي أَنَّهَا لَا تُمْنَع الْمَسْجِد لَكِنْ بِشُرُوطٍ ذَكَرَهَا الْعُلَمَاء مَأْخُوذَة مِنْ الْأَحَادِيث , وَهُوَ أَلَّا تَكُون مُتَطَيِّبَة , وَلَا مُتَزَيِّنَة , وَلَا ذَات خَلَاخِل يُسْمَع صَوْتهَا , وَلَا ثِيَاب فَاخِرَة , وَلَا مُخْتَلِطَة بِالرِّجَالِ , وَلَا شَابَّة وَنَحْوهَا مِمَّنْ يُفْتَتَن بِهَا , وَأَنْ لَا يَكُون فِي الطَّرِيق مَا يَخَاف بِهِ مَفْسَدَة وَنَحْوهَا . وَهَذَا النَّهْي عَنْ مَنْعهنَّ مِنْ الْخُرُوج مَحْمُول عَلَى كَرَاهَة التَّنْزِيه إِذَا كَانَتْ الْمَرْأَة ذَات زَوْج أَوْ سَيِّد وَوُجِدَتْ الشُّرُوط الْمَذْكُورَة , فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهَا زَوْج وَلَا سَيِّد حَرُمَ الْمَنْع إِذَا وُجِدَتْ الشُّرُوط .
"From this hadith and other ahadith like this it appears that women should not be prohibited from the masjid, but with conditions that the scholars have mentioned and which are deduced from ahadith and these are:
1) She should not wear any perfume.....
|
|
|
Post by abuyusuf on Jul 4, 2018 15:44:31 GMT
Can someone also please verify the definition of البذلة given in the post by Deoband?
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jul 4, 2018 18:05:06 GMT
Can the Ulama here honestly and justly say if the above is a correct representation of what Hafiz Ibn Hajar As Qalani is saying? The portion quoted above: حديث أبي قتادة رفعه " إني لأقوم في الصلاة " الحديث وفيه " فأتجوز في صلاتي كراهية أن أشق على أمه " وقد تقدم شرحه في أبواب الإمامة ، قال ابن دقيق العيد : هذا الحديث عام في النساء ، إلا أن الفقهاء خصوه بشروط : منها أن لا تتطيب ، وهو في بعض الروايات وليخرجن تفلات قلت : هو بفتح المثناة وكسر الفاء أي غير متطيبات ، ويقال امرأة تفلة إذا كانت [ ص: 407 ] متغيرة الريح ، وهو عند أبي داود وابن خزيمة من حديث أبي هريرة وعند ابن حبان من حديث زيد بن خالد وأوله لا تمنعوا إماء الله مساجد الله ولمسلم من حديث زينب امرأة ابن مسعود " إذا شهدت إحداكن المسجد فلا تمسن طيبا " انتهى . What Hafiz ibn Hajar himself says in the introduction to fath Ul bari: "قَوْله وليخرجن تفلات التفل بِفَتْح الْفَاء الرَّائِحَة الكريهة وَالْمرَاد أَن لَا يتطيبن يُقَال هُوَ تفل أَي غير متطيب "Regarding his (saw) saying 'let them go out tafilaat: tafal is an unpleasant odour. But the sense intended here is that they should not apply perfume. If one says 'He is tafil' it means he is without perfume"." Why do the following Imams not mention foul smelling? Ibn Qudama writes: وقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : { لا تمنعوا إماء الله مساجد الله ، وليخرجن تفلات . يعني غير متطيبات } . رواه أبو داود ...but they may go out (to the mosque) while they are tafilaat, meaning that they not be wearing perfume. Where does Imam Nawawi say tafilaat means foul smelling? Here he writes: قَوْله صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ( لَا تَمْنَعُوا إِمَاء اللَّه مَسَاجِد اللَّه ) هَذَا وَشَبَهه مِنْ أَحَادِيث الْبَاب ظَاهِر فِي أَنَّهَا لَا تُمْنَع الْمَسْجِد لَكِنْ بِشُرُوطٍ ذَكَرَهَا الْعُلَمَاء مَأْخُوذَة مِنْ الْأَحَادِيث , وَهُوَ أَلَّا تَكُون مُتَطَيِّبَة , وَلَا مُتَزَيِّنَة , وَلَا ذَات خَلَاخِل يُسْمَع صَوْتهَا , وَلَا ثِيَاب فَاخِرَة , وَلَا مُخْتَلِطَة بِالرِّجَالِ , وَلَا شَابَّة وَنَحْوهَا مِمَّنْ يُفْتَتَن بِهَا , وَأَنْ لَا يَكُون فِي الطَّرِيق مَا يَخَاف بِهِ مَفْسَدَة وَنَحْوهَا . وَهَذَا النَّهْي عَنْ مَنْعهنَّ مِنْ الْخُرُوج مَحْمُول عَلَى كَرَاهَة التَّنْزِيه إِذَا كَانَتْ الْمَرْأَة ذَات زَوْج أَوْ سَيِّد وَوُجِدَتْ الشُّرُوط الْمَذْكُورَة , فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهَا زَوْج وَلَا سَيِّد حَرُمَ الْمَنْع إِذَا وُجِدَتْ الشُّرُوط . "From this hadith and other ahadith like this it appears that women should not be prohibited from the masjid, but with conditions that the scholars have mentioned and which are deduced from ahadith and these are: 1) She should not wear any perfume..... There's no conundrum or secret behind the meaning of the word "tafila". Check all the Arabic dictionaries, both classical and modern. It's simple and obvious meaning is "stinky".
Thus, your question regarding Imam Nawawi or the countless other scholars who narrate the Hadith requiring women to be "Tafilaat" amounts to:
"Why didn't Imam Nawawi define "stinky" to be "foul-smelling""?
The Fuqaha and the experts in the Arabic language do expound further in saying that "She stank as a result of not applying fragrance".
The next installment of the article will cover in detail what the terms "Tafilaat", "Sayyi-atur Reeh", "Natinur Reeh", "Mutaghayyarutur Reeh", "al-Bizlah", "Khashshi Thiyaabihi", "Ghair Mutatayyibah", "Ghair Mutazayyinah", and other similar terms mean according to the Fuqaha and the linguistic experts, who use all such terms interchangeably and synonymously.
|
|
|
Post by abuyusuf on Jul 4, 2018 18:15:04 GMT
Imam An Nawawi does not mention tafilaat as a condition in that quote, he mentions she should not wear any perfume. Qadi Iyad mentions the same thing. Does Imam Nawawi explicitly interpret tafilaat as foul smelling?
|
|
|
Post by abuyusuf on Jul 4, 2018 20:01:29 GMT
I also hope in the next installment you make it clear that women need to adhere to those terms when in the Haramain. I also hope you clarify whether women have to be stinky when they are in the malls around the haramain, and whenever they leave home to go anywhere in public.
|
|
|
Post by abuyusuf on Jul 4, 2018 21:57:31 GMT
Also from ibn Daqeeq al Eid
الحديث صريح في النهي عن المنع للنساء عن المساجد عند الاستئذان وقوله في الرواية الأخرى { لا تمنعوا إماء الله } يشعر أيضا بطلبهن للخروج فإن المانع إنما يكون بعد وجود المقتضى . ويلزم من النهي عن منعهن من الخروج إباحته لهن ; لأنه لو كان ممتنعا لم ينه الرجال عن منعهن منه . والحديث عام في النساء ، ولكن الفقهاء قد خصوه بشروط وحالات : منها : أن لا يتطيبن . وهذا الشرط مذكور في الحديث . ففي بعض الروايات { وليخرجن تفلات } وفي بعضها { إذا شهدت إحداكن المسجد فلا تمس طيبا } وفي بعضها { إذا شهدت إحداكن العشاء فلا تطيب تلك الليلة } فألحق بالطيب ما في معناه . فإن الطيب إنما منع منه لما فيه من تحريك داعية الرجال وشهوتهم . وربما يكون سببا لتحريك شهوة المرأة أيضا . فما أوجب هذا المعنى التحق به
|
|