feet not awra

[sunflower]

Assalaamu alaikum
Does anyone know what the basis in the hanafi school is for the feet not being awra? I understand there is a strong opinion in the hanafi school that says feet are awra.
Wasalaam

[Abu 'Abdillah al-Maliki]

I don't know about the Hanafi sources themselves, but Ibn Taymiyyah agreed with the Hanafi position that the feet are not 'awrah, and he mentioned the arguments for this in one of his fatawa.

The basis of it, he explained, is that in custom or practice, the face, hands and feet are normally kept uncovered, and also because not every woman can afford to have socks or khuffs. Therefore, he says, it would be unnecessarily hard on the women to oblige her to cover her feet.

Regarding the hadith of Umm Salamah containing the order that the woman's dress must be long enough to cover the tops of her feet, he argued that this hadith is mawquf [i.e. the saying of a sahabi and not directly from Rasulullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam], therefore it cannot be used as a proof on its own. Also, even if it is authentic, if a woman's dress covers the tops of the feet, there is a possibility for the bottoms of her feet to become visible when she makes sujud or the sitting in the tashahhud, therefore if her feet were indeed 'awrah, the dress wouldn't be enough to cover them, wallahu a'lam.

[muslim forever]

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=101&CATE=90

[Amina786]

But then why does it say that the feet must be covered according to most scholars?

[salman]

But then why does it say that the feet must be covered according to most scholars?

i.e. of other schools who considered it obligatory and those within the Hanafi school who said to do so out of caution and taqwa, not because it was awra.

[faqir]

:salam:

Bro, do you have a reference for his fatwa?


I don't know about the Hanafi sources themselves, but Ibn Taymiyyah agreed with the Hanafi position that the feet are not 'awrah, and he mentioned the arguments for this in one of his fatawa.

The basis of it, he explained, is that in custom or practice, the face, hands and feet are normally kept uncovered, and also because not every woman can afford to have socks or khuffs. Therefore, he says, it would be unnecessarily hard on the women to oblige her to cover her feet.

Regarding the hadith of Umm Salamah containing the order that the woman's dress must be long enough to cover the tops of her feet, he argued that this hadith is mawquf [i.e. the saying of a sahabi and not directly from Rasulullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam], therefore it cannot be used as a proof on its own. Also, even if it is authentic, if a woman's dress covers the tops of the feet, there is a possibility for the bottoms of her feet to become visible when she makes sujud or the sitting in the tashahhud, therefore if her feet were indeed 'awrah, the dress wouldn't be enough to cover them, wallahu a'lam.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

i.e. of other schools who considered it obligatory and those within the Hanafi school who said to do so out of caution and taqwa, not because it was awra.

what is the proof of the hanafi position - i think thats what the sister would like to know (and me :lol: )?

[salman]

what is the proof of the hanafi position - i think thats what the sister would like to know (and me :lol: )?

Salamu `alaykum

The proof is the Qur'anic verse:

"She should not display her beauty except that which is revealed thereof."

Imam Qurtubi states in his Tafsir:

وذكر آخرَ عن عائشة رضي الله عنها عن النبيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: " لا يحل لامرأة تؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر إذا عركَت أن تظهر إلا وجهها ويديها إلى هاهنا "

and

يدل على ذلك ما رواه أبو داود عن عائشة رضي الله عنها أن أسماء بنت أبي بكر رضي الله عنهما دخلت على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وعليها ثياب رِقاق، فأعرض عنها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وقال لها: " «يا أسماء إن المرأة إذا بلغت المِحيض لم يصلح أن يُرَى منها إلا هذا»وأشار إلى وجهه وكفّيه "

And since the face and hands are considered to be part of that which is "revealed thereof" by analogy (qiyas) the feet are also included since [1] The necessity of revealing the feet is even moreso than the face and hands, as it can easily be unconcealed in everyday activity such as walking and [2] If the face is not considered `awra then the feet have a more right not to be considered so due to the fact that the face is considered the primary place of attraction unlike the feet.

Wasalam

[Abu 'Abdillah al-Maliki]

Bro, do you have a reference for his fatwa?


Quote: Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdillah al-Maliki
I don't know about the Hanafi sources themselves, but Ibn Taymiyyah agreed with the Hanafi position that the feet are not 'awrah, and he mentioned the arguments for this in one of his fatawa.

The basis of it, he explained, is that in custom or practice, the face, hands and feet are normally kept uncovered, and also because not every woman can afford to have socks or khuffs. Therefore, he says, it would be unnecessarily hard on the women to oblige her to cover her feet.

Regarding the hadith of Umm Salamah containing the order that the woman's dress must be long enough to cover the tops of her feet, he argued that this hadith is mawquf [i.e. the saying of a sahabi and not directly from Rasulullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam], therefore it cannot be used as a proof on its own. Also, even if it is authentic, if a woman's dress covers the tops of the feet, there is a possibility for the bottoms of her feet to become visible when she makes sujud or the sitting in the tashahhud, therefore if her feet were indeed 'awrah, the dress wouldn't be enough to cover them, wallahu a'lam.

There is a book that I have or had from Saudiyyah, it's a collection of four different booklets about hijab. One of the booklets quotes this fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah. I think the name of the book is something like "Majmu' Rasa'il fil-Hijab was-Sufur" wallahu a'lam.

[Amina786]

so this means you would consider the face awra? which would mean you would agree that niqab is obligatory?

[sunflower]

jazakallah for all the info