Can the story of Hind be used as evidence (when she pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), he asked her, “Who are you?”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Hind, may Allah reward you, O Shaykh. When Hind pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : In the context of meaning the hadith and similar matters, if the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had known, he could have said, “You are Hind” or something like that.
The Shaykh : How would he know what?
The questioner : He knew she was HindSunan Abi Dawud 4325Sahih (Al-Albani)
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : I mean, she pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) not by shaking hands and not by being seen; she would say, “I am Hind.”
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : ... Hind, so-and-so. I mean, if it had been permissible for women to show their faces, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would have known in Makkah that this is so-and-so’s woman and that is so-and-so’s woman. I mean, Hind bint so-and-so said until the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “I have been killed by so-and-so and so-and-so of my sons ... Indeed ... O Muhammad.
The Shaykh : Yes, I mean, she says that he did not recognize her as Hind because she was covering her face.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Yes, and we have denied covering the face, you see.
The questioner : No, I do not want to know, Shaykh. Does this clarify that it means...
The Shaykh : No, but...
The questioner : You have not denied it, may Allah reward you. You are saying that it is not obligatory for women, so I ask: how did Hind lower her face in this manner?
The Shaykh : My brother, this argument is directed at those who say, as I have refuted some of them, that a woman covering her face is a religious innovation. This argument is directed at them. As for me, I have established a specific section on the permissibility of a woman covering her face, so this argument does not apply to me, because I firmly believe that many women in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) covered their faces, and many of them uncovered their faces. Therefore, covering indicates what is better, and uncovering indicates permissibility.
So this hadith of Hind that you are citing is not applicable to me, because I am in favor of covering. But when you say that this woman was covering her face based on what you mentioned, where do you get the idea that this was because it was obligatory for her?
Then, O Glorious is Allah, you mention this following some of the noble Shaykhs, and then you forget that it is an argument against you. You are now talking about the henna on her hand. You do not say that only the woman’s face is the part of the body that must be covered, but you say her whole body is the part of the body that must be covered. And as is reported from Imam Ahmad, even her fingernails, is that not so?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Well, this hadith indicates the correctness of this statement.
The questioner : No, yes.
The Shaykh : How is it not? Yes, how did it become so?
The questioner : You say it indicates that the hand is indeed the part of the body that must be covered. The apparent meaning of the hadith in this form does not indicate that.
The Shaykh : It does not indicate that. So how[Al-Baqarah 2:85] how do you use part of the hadith as evidence for obligation when there is no evidence for obligation? Because this is an action, and we acknowledge it. But why do you deny the hadith’s indication regarding what you prohibit, even though the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) saw it and ordered her to apply henna, and there are several hadiths on this matter?
The questioner : He, O Shaykh, may Allah reward you, came after so many hadiths, like a woman lowering her garment over her foot, meaning, hypothetically, her face.
The Shaykh : Let us stay with the hand for now; we do not want to make analogies.
The questioner : I want to say to you on the basis that I am telling you: it started with the face, and after that, other hadiths may have come. I do not know the jurisprudence. The lowering of the hand came after that, and then the foot.
The Shaykh : How did the foot come?
The questioner : I mean, a hadith came that a woman must lower [her garment] a hand’s width. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to the woman, a hand’s width or something like that, over her foot.
The Shaykh : Ah
The questioner : A hadith came after covering the face. I mean, is it said that she lowers her foot first and not her face? How is the wording? I mean, “Lower it, hypothetically...”
The Shaykh : You have returned to analogy, meaning.
The questioner : No, it is not analogy. I mean, perhaps the hadith came on the basis that, yes, first the face, and then the foot.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. The word “perhaps”—let us put it on that star. This “perhaps,” my brother, “you will not build a house”. They say in Syria, the word “perhaps.” I am telling you “perhaps.” What do you say? Perhaps a hadith came permitting the uncovering of the face and the uncovering of the two hands, and this hadith is with you now, and you are contradicting it. And the proverb says, “a bird in the hand is better than ten in the tree.”
So you now have a hadith with clear indication that the woman’s hand is not the part of the body that must be covered. So where is the hadith that indicates that this hand came after, as you say? Perhaps another hadith came indicating that the hand is the part of the body that must be covered. Where is this hadith? It does not exist. It is never permissible to be fanatical about a school of jurisprudence and to submit to traditions and customs. That is not Islam. Islam is what Allah said and what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said. Whether you like it or not, you must submit your heart, your mind, and your entire being to the ruling of the Shari'ah.
And you, perhaps you remember with me now the hadith of Rafi' ibn Khadij, which Imam Muslim narrated in his Sahih or as he said. Do you remember this hadith?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : This is faith. He forbade them from renting out the land, and they were benefiting; the landowner was benefiting and the tenant was benefiting. But he said, “Obedience to Allah is better for us.”
So it is not befitting that these matters be taken by emotions and customs, but rather by what Allah said and what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said.
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : In the context of
When Hind pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) also saw her hand not having henna on it, I think, or her nails being long, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Who are you?” or as he said. She said, “I am Hind bint so-and-so and so-and-so.” So the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered her
هند عند ما بايعت الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وعندما أيضا رأى الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم يدها غير متحنية فأظن أو تطيل أظافرها فقال الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم من أنت أو كما قال فقالت أنا هند بنت كذا وكذا فأمرها الرسول صلى الله عليهThat she must apply henna to her hand and not become like men.
إنه لابد أن تحني يدها ولا تصير كالرجالThe Shaykh : How would he know what?
The questioner : He knew she was Hind
I am the Jassasah
قال ما أنت قالت أنا هندThe Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : I mean, she pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) not by shaking hands and not by being seen; she would say, “I am Hind.”
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : ... Hind, so-and-so. I mean, if it had been permissible for women to show their faces, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would have known in Makkah that this is so-and-so’s woman and that is so-and-so’s woman. I mean, Hind bint so-and-so said until the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “I have been killed by so-and-so and so-and-so of my sons ... Indeed ... O Muhammad.
The Shaykh : Yes, I mean, she says that he did not recognize her as Hind because she was covering her face.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Yes, and we have denied covering the face, you see.
The questioner : No, I do not want to know, Shaykh. Does this clarify that it means...
The Shaykh : No, but...
The questioner : You have not denied it, may Allah reward you. You are saying that it is not obligatory for women, so I ask: how did Hind lower her face in this manner?
The Shaykh : My brother, this argument is directed at those who say, as I have refuted some of them, that a woman covering her face is a religious innovation. This argument is directed at them. As for me, I have established a specific section on the permissibility of a woman covering her face, so this argument does not apply to me, because I firmly believe that many women in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) covered their faces, and many of them uncovered their faces. Therefore, covering indicates what is better, and uncovering indicates permissibility.
So this hadith of Hind that you are citing is not applicable to me, because I am in favor of covering. But when you say that this woman was covering her face based on what you mentioned, where do you get the idea that this was because it was obligatory for her?
Then, O Glorious is Allah, you mention this following some of the noble Shaykhs, and then you forget that it is an argument against you. You are now talking about the henna on her hand. You do not say that only the woman’s face is the part of the body that must be covered, but you say her whole body is the part of the body that must be covered. And as is reported from Imam Ahmad, even her fingernails, is that not so?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Well, this hadith indicates the correctness of this statement.
The questioner : No, yes.
The Shaykh : How is it not? Yes, how did it become so?
The questioner : You say it indicates that the hand is indeed the part of the body that must be covered. The apparent meaning of the hadith in this form does not indicate that.
The Shaykh : It does not indicate that. So how
do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part
تؤمنون ببعض الكتاب وتكفرون ببعضThe questioner : He, O Shaykh, may Allah reward you, came after so many hadiths, like a woman lowering her garment over her foot, meaning, hypothetically, her face.
The Shaykh : Let us stay with the hand for now; we do not want to make analogies.
The questioner : I want to say to you on the basis that I am telling you: it started with the face, and after that, other hadiths may have come. I do not know the jurisprudence. The lowering of the hand came after that, and then the foot.
The Shaykh : How did the foot come?
The questioner : I mean, a hadith came that a woman must lower [her garment] a hand’s width. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to the woman, a hand’s width or something like that, over her foot.
The Shaykh : Ah
The questioner : A hadith came after covering the face. I mean, is it said that she lowers her foot first and not her face? How is the wording? I mean, “Lower it, hypothetically...”
The Shaykh : You have returned to analogy, meaning.
The questioner : No, it is not analogy. I mean, perhaps the hadith came on the basis that, yes, first the face, and then the foot.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. The word “perhaps”—let us put it on that star. This “perhaps,” my brother, “you will not build a house”. They say in Syria, the word “perhaps.” I am telling you “perhaps.” What do you say? Perhaps a hadith came permitting the uncovering of the face and the uncovering of the two hands, and this hadith is with you now, and you are contradicting it. And the proverb says, “a bird in the hand is better than ten in the tree.”
So you now have a hadith with clear indication that the woman’s hand is not the part of the body that must be covered. So where is the hadith that indicates that this hand came after, as you say? Perhaps another hadith came indicating that the hand is the part of the body that must be covered. Where is this hadith? It does not exist. It is never permissible to be fanatical about a school of jurisprudence and to submit to traditions and customs. That is not Islam. Islam is what Allah said and what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said. Whether you like it or not, you must submit your heart, your mind, and your entire being to the ruling of the Shari'ah.
And you, perhaps you remember with me now the hadith of Rafi' ibn Khadij, which Imam Muslim narrated in his Sahih
That the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade them from renting out the land, and renting out the land was more comfortable for them, but obedience to Allah and His Messenger is better for us.
أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حرم عليهم إيجار الأرض وكان إيجار الأرض أرفق بهم لكن طاعة الله ورسوله أولى بناThe questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : This is faith. He forbade them from renting out the land, and they were benefiting; the landowner was benefiting and the tenant was benefiting. But he said, “Obedience to Allah is better for us.”
So it is not befitting that these matters be taken by emotions and customs, but rather by what Allah said and what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said.