Is what is considered 'awrah (the part of the body that must be covered) outside of prayer, such as the feet, also considered 'awrah inside of prayer?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : There is a difference. I do not have the conviction that a woman inside of prayer covers what she does not cover outside of prayer. There is a difference between what she covers inside of prayer and what she wears when she goes out into the street.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. This argument is used against you. This argument is used against you.
The questioner : You mentioned that ... .
The Shaykh : I am telling you that this argument is used against you. Say yes, say no, so that I know whether you understand me or not. What you are saying is an argument against you. You are saying that what is not 'awrah outside of prayer becomes 'awrah in prayer. I am telling you the opposite. How can you say that if there is 'awrah for a woman outside of prayer, it is permissible for her to expose that 'awrah in prayer? You are not answering me on this. So regarding the feet mentioned in the explicit verse, either you believe with us, according to the Shafi'i school, that a woman's feet are 'awrah. We are not talking about prayer here, but outside of prayer. That means her jilbab (outer garment) or her garment must be long.
The questioner : It covers the feet.
The Shaykh : Good. So, are you with us on this point first? And what I understood from you is that you are with us?
The questioner : Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : Good. Now, the argument is used against you. How do you say that a woman's prayer is valid while she exposes her 'awrah, meaning her feet? How do you say this? And I told you, it is the opposite. There is in the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law), among the etiquettes of prayer, that what is not 'awrah outside of prayer is 'awrah in prayer. That is, what is not permissible to expose outside of prayer is not permissible to expose inside of prayer. And this is regarding the sex that you and others call the "coarse sex." What about the "fine sex"? Is it permissible for her to expose any part of her 'awrah in prayer? It is not permissible, my sister.
The questioner : There is a hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) that says a woman prays in a dress and a head covering? Is it a hadith or a statement of Aisha?
The Shaykh : Let it be whatever you want. I am not recalling it right now. But what did you understand from the hadith? What is the dress?
The questioner : Is it a hadith or a statement of Aisha?
The Shaykh : I am asking you, just as you want to say. This is not the research, because I am not recalling it right now. But what is the dress?
The questioner : A garment like the dishdasha, like the jilbab.
The Shaykh : Good. So, how long is the dishdasha?
The questioner : I mean, in my thinking, is it a condition that the dishdasha covers the feet? Is it a condition?
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. It is as if you did not know about the Salafis (a follower of the Salaf) until today. I am telling you that the dress is the shirt. How long is it? Is this text that you are now resorting to and asking about—whether it is a hadith, whether it is an athar (a report from a Companion or successor), whether it is an authentic hadith, whether it is an authentic athar—and I am passing over that for you, I am telling you that it does not concern me right now because I am not recalling this or that. But suppose what suits you. Suppose it is a hadith, suppose it is an athar, suppose it is authentic. What does "shirt" mean? The summary of the matter in this hadith, this hadith or this athar—I am not telling you that it is a shirt that does not cover the feet so that you can take refuge in it and rely on it, which would benefit you nothing. So your question about whether it is a hadith or an athar, well, suppose whatever you want, a hadith or an athar, suppose it is authentic, but it benefits you nothing in the matter, because the shirt—I told you earlier that there is an athar from Umm Salama that she must pray in such and such, in summary, and in a shirt that reaches the feet, reaching the feet. So why do we leave the clear, apparent, evident matters and cling to things that are, at the very least, among the ambiguous? Then, if I want to enter into the discussion, I want to tell you that this hadith is authentic in your view, which you are arguing with, and this athar is authentic in your view, which you want to argue with. I am now ... .
The questioner : I read it in ... .
The Shaykh : It does not concern me where you read it. How many people read fabricated and false hadiths, and so on. We have no concern with that. My point is that you should have awareness of how you must derive rulings. Suppose that this is something authentic, but it does not make it clear to you that the back of a woman's foot is not 'awrah. What is the benefit of it if so? And how do we strike the explicit verse with such an athar?
The questioner : I meant that if a woman goes out, she must wear. I want to benefit from this athar in one aspect, in distinguishing between her clothing regarding what is 'awrah outside of prayer, for the specific matter of 'awrah that you said is more severe for prayer if it is not 'awrah outside of prayer, and not the opposite.
The Shaykh : I am saying this is an argument against you.
The questioner : What I know is that the khimar (the head covering) is not the head covering? Without being ... and it is not the jilbab.
The Shaykh : Did you see how you dropped down now? Now you were talking about the shirt and you had not finished with it, and when I told you that this argument is against you, where did you jump to? To the khimar. May Allah forgive you.
The questioner : I am allowing that I am making a mistake in expression, but my intention is that the form of a woman if she wears a dishdasha and a khimar covering her head is not the complete clothing that she could go out in if she wanted to go out in it. And we say the jilbab that comes down over her shoulders, and the izar (lower garment) as they say, that it is better for her to pray in a dress and a khimar and an izar, meaning clothing ... I mean, I understand it this way. I mean, are you correcting my understanding?
The Shaykh : I do not understand what you understand ... .
The questioner : What I understood is that a woman's prayer in a dress and a khimar is as if there is a relaxation in this clothing ... .
The Shaykh : Leave the vague terms. May Allah guide you. Our research is not about whether she prays in a dress and a khimar. Our research is what is the dress. Then we research with you what is the khimar. It is not our research whether she prays in a dress and a khimar or not. Our research is what is the dress. I said it is the shirt. We researched this shirt, how long is it, does it reach the feet or not. We did not reach a result with you.
The questioner : If it is according to the hadith of Umm Salama, it is enough that it must reach the feet.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. It is not your custom to struggle with research like this, even though the issue is very clear. You have a verse in the Qur'an; hold onto it tightly, grip it with your teeth. Since you are convinced that prayer has a perfection and a form that is better than the form of the person who is obligated while he is outside of prayer, now you are reversing the issue and saying that it is permissible for a woman to pray with her feet exposed, even though the verse says she must cover her feet. This is because the feet are part of the 'awrah (part of the body that must be covered). This is correct, as some jurists say. And I am in the process of refuting them today regarding the claim that a woman's face is 'awrah. However, it is permissible for her to uncover her face in prayer. Allahu Akbar. The permissibility of uncovering her face in prayer is proof that it is not 'awrah outside of prayer. According to the correct logic we mentioned earlier, what is not 'awrah in prayer may be 'awrah outside of prayer; but what is not 'awrah in prayer cannot be 'awrah outside of prayer. Because prayer means that a person, whether male or female, must stand before Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) in the most complete form and the most complete adornment, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding men:. So if the feet are part of a woman's 'awrah, is it said that it is permissible for her to pray while exposing the 'awrah of her feet? This is one of the most ridiculous things that can be said. Likewise, those who say that the woman's face remains 'awrah but it is permissible for her to pray with her face exposed—meaning it is permissible to pray with something of her 'awrah exposed—is a strange thing. In any case, I have clarified the issue you started speaking about, which is that Ibn Taymiyyah says it is permissible for a woman to pray with her feet uncovered. If Ibn Taymiyyah said this, then the refutation is explicit by the verse. But what I remember from when I was in Damascus, and what I have not read anew, is that he said if the sole of a woman's foot is exposed, her prayer is valid, because the sole of the foot is not 'awrah, because they used to walk barefoot. They used to walk in a shirt with no other clothing, but this shirt was long. As you know, the hadith came. The first question was: If her feet are exposed, he said: . The second question was: If the wind comes and her leg is exposed, . So covering the top of the feet is obligatory. But the woman of today, praise be to Allah, there is no woman who walks without socks, especially the Qubaysiyyah group and those like them whom you know, whose jilbabs (outer garments) go to the middle of the calf, so they wear socks. The sole of the foot does not show, but the whole foot shows in a solid form. The point is that in the past, women used to pray while barefoot. So if, for example, she sat and her buttocks were exposed and the sole of her foot was uncovered, Ibn Taymiyyah says her prayer is valid. And I agree with him on this. But if she intentionally prays as some women do who wear short jilbabs and socks that cover the feet, of course this is not permissible, because it is not complete covering. This is what I remember about Ibn Taymiyyah. I do not remember Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) saying that it is permissible for a woman's shirt not to cover the top of her feet. So now, on this occasion, I want to verify with you this thing you mentioned about Ibn Taymiyyah. Did you read it anew, and where?
The questioner: I read it in his books on the woman's covering inside and outside of prayer, a booklet.
The Shaykh : And does he say it is permissible for a woman...
The questioner: I am sure, once, twice, and three times...
The Shaykh: That it is...
The questioner: About the exposure of her feet, and he did not refer to the sole or the top. He did not refer to the sole or the top.
The Shaykh : And did he say that she must pray in a long shirt because of the exposure of the feet?
The questioner: ... I am asking you because Ibn Taymiyyah's statement confused me...
The Shaykh : Why are you blaming me? Why don't you answer me?
The questioner: I am not sure.
The Shaykh : Okay, that is the answer. Say that you are not sure, and I will be satisfied with that. You will remember and tell me, or you will not remember and not tell me. I will not ask you why you are not sure. This is the present situation. The important thing is that I tell you to review the issue only regarding Ibn Taymiyyah, so that I can correct my old understanding of Ibn Taymiyyah, that he distinguishes between the top of the feet and the sole of the feet. So that the second time I say that Ibn Taymiyyah erred because he contradicted the verse. I know that Ibn Taymiyyah says that the woman is entirely 'awrah, her entire face and feet. So now, if he says one is praying with her feet exposed, I consider this unlikely from Ibn Taymiyyah.
The questioner: Because what triggered the research on Ibn Taymiyyah was the distinction between the woman's clothing inside prayer and her clothing outside prayer, meaning outside her house. So when he started the research, he distinguished between the two, and for the sake of this distinction...
The Shaykh : No problem, I have not made a mistake with you now. I tell you to review the research and give us the conclusion about Ibn Taymiyyah. As for the Sharia aspect, it is obligatory for the woman to cover the top of her feet inside and outside of prayer. And the correct Islamic logic is that it is obligatory for the woman not to be lenient with what she is obligated to cover outside of prayer inside of prayer. Rather, if the opposite were said, we would say that is better. If we wanted to work with analogical reasoning (qiyas), but we do not work with analogical reasoning as long as Allah has relieved us of it with texts. Do you have anything else?
The questioner : May Allah grant you well-being.
The Shaykh: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. This argument is used against you. This argument is used against you.
The questioner : You mentioned that ... .
The Shaykh : I am telling you that this argument is used against you. Say yes, say no, so that I know whether you understand me or not. What you are saying is an argument against you. You are saying that what is not 'awrah outside of prayer becomes 'awrah in prayer. I am telling you the opposite. How can you say that if there is 'awrah for a woman outside of prayer, it is permissible for her to expose that 'awrah in prayer? You are not answering me on this. So regarding the feet mentioned in the explicit verse, either you believe with us, according to the Shafi'i school, that a woman's feet are 'awrah. We are not talking about prayer here, but outside of prayer. That means her jilbab (outer garment) or her garment must be long.
The questioner : It covers the feet.
The Shaykh : Good. So, are you with us on this point first? And what I understood from you is that you are with us?
The questioner : Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : Good. Now, the argument is used against you. How do you say that a woman's prayer is valid while she exposes her 'awrah, meaning her feet? How do you say this? And I told you, it is the opposite. There is in the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law), among the etiquettes of prayer, that what is not 'awrah outside of prayer is 'awrah in prayer. That is, what is not permissible to expose outside of prayer is not permissible to expose inside of prayer. And this is regarding the sex that you and others call the "coarse sex." What about the "fine sex"? Is it permissible for her to expose any part of her 'awrah in prayer? It is not permissible, my sister.
The questioner : There is a hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) that says a woman prays in a dress and a head covering? Is it a hadith or a statement of Aisha?
The Shaykh : Let it be whatever you want. I am not recalling it right now. But what did you understand from the hadith? What is the dress?
The questioner : Is it a hadith or a statement of Aisha?
The Shaykh : I am asking you, just as you want to say. This is not the research, because I am not recalling it right now. But what is the dress?
The questioner : A garment like the dishdasha, like the jilbab.
The Shaykh : Good. So, how long is the dishdasha?
The questioner : I mean, in my thinking, is it a condition that the dishdasha covers the feet? Is it a condition?
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. It is as if you did not know about the Salafis (a follower of the Salaf) until today. I am telling you that the dress is the shirt. How long is it? Is this text that you are now resorting to and asking about—whether it is a hadith, whether it is an athar (a report from a Companion or successor), whether it is an authentic hadith, whether it is an authentic athar—and I am passing over that for you, I am telling you that it does not concern me right now because I am not recalling this or that. But suppose what suits you. Suppose it is a hadith, suppose it is an athar, suppose it is authentic. What does "shirt" mean? The summary of the matter in this hadith, this hadith or this athar—I am not telling you that it is a shirt that does not cover the feet so that you can take refuge in it and rely on it, which would benefit you nothing. So your question about whether it is a hadith or an athar, well, suppose whatever you want, a hadith or an athar, suppose it is authentic, but it benefits you nothing in the matter, because the shirt—I told you earlier that there is an athar from Umm Salama that she must pray in such and such, in summary, and in a shirt that reaches the feet, reaching the feet. So why do we leave the clear, apparent, evident matters and cling to things that are, at the very least, among the ambiguous? Then, if I want to enter into the discussion, I want to tell you that this hadith is authentic in your view, which you are arguing with, and this athar is authentic in your view, which you want to argue with. I am now ... .
The questioner : I read it in ... .
The Shaykh : It does not concern me where you read it. How many people read fabricated and false hadiths, and so on. We have no concern with that. My point is that you should have awareness of how you must derive rulings. Suppose that this is something authentic, but it does not make it clear to you that the back of a woman's foot is not 'awrah. What is the benefit of it if so? And how do we strike the explicit verse with such an athar?
The questioner : I meant that if a woman goes out, she must wear. I want to benefit from this athar in one aspect, in distinguishing between her clothing regarding what is 'awrah outside of prayer, for the specific matter of 'awrah that you said is more severe for prayer if it is not 'awrah outside of prayer, and not the opposite.
The Shaykh : I am saying this is an argument against you.
The questioner : What I know is that the khimar (the head covering) is not the head covering? Without being ... and it is not the jilbab.
The Shaykh : Did you see how you dropped down now? Now you were talking about the shirt and you had not finished with it, and when I told you that this argument is against you, where did you jump to? To the khimar. May Allah forgive you.
The questioner : I am allowing that I am making a mistake in expression, but my intention is that the form of a woman if she wears a dishdasha and a khimar covering her head is not the complete clothing that she could go out in if she wanted to go out in it. And we say the jilbab that comes down over her shoulders, and the izar (lower garment) as they say, that it is better for her to pray in a dress and a khimar and an izar, meaning clothing ... I mean, I understand it this way. I mean, are you correcting my understanding?
The Shaykh : I do not understand what you understand ... .
The questioner : What I understood is that a woman's prayer in a dress and a khimar is as if there is a relaxation in this clothing ... .
The Shaykh : Leave the vague terms. May Allah guide you. Our research is not about whether she prays in a dress and a khimar. Our research is what is the dress. Then we research with you what is the khimar. It is not our research whether she prays in a dress and a khimar or not. Our research is what is the dress. I said it is the shirt. We researched this shirt, how long is it, does it reach the feet or not. We did not reach a result with you.
The questioner : If it is according to the hadith of Umm Salama, it is enough that it must reach the feet.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. It is not your custom to struggle with research like this, even though the issue is very clear. You have a verse in the Qur'an; hold onto it tightly, grip it with your teeth. Since you are convinced that prayer has a perfection and a form that is better than the form of the person who is obligated while he is outside of prayer, now you are reversing the issue and saying that it is permissible for a woman to pray with her feet exposed, even though the verse says she must cover her feet. This is because the feet are part of the 'awrah (part of the body that must be covered). This is correct, as some jurists say. And I am in the process of refuting them today regarding the claim that a woman's face is 'awrah. However, it is permissible for her to uncover her face in prayer. Allahu Akbar. The permissibility of uncovering her face in prayer is proof that it is not 'awrah outside of prayer. According to the correct logic we mentioned earlier, what is not 'awrah in prayer may be 'awrah outside of prayer; but what is not 'awrah in prayer cannot be 'awrah outside of prayer. Because prayer means that a person, whether male or female, must stand before Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) in the most complete form and the most complete adornment, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding men:
Whoever has a waist wrapper and a cloak, let him wrap himself and put on the cloak, for Allah has more right to be adorned for than anyone else.
من كان له إزار ورداء فليتزر وليرتدي فإن الله أحق أن يتزين لهWhoever drags his garment out of arrogance, Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.
من جر إزاره خيلاء لم ينظر الله تبارك وتعالى إليه يوم القيامةLet it be a shibr (span) long.
فلتطل شبراLet it be another shibr (span) long, and do not exceed it.
فلتطل إذا شبرا آخر ولا تزدن عليهThe questioner: I read it in his books on the woman's covering inside and outside of prayer, a booklet.
The Shaykh : And does he say it is permissible for a woman...
The questioner: I am sure, once, twice, and three times...
The Shaykh: That it is...
The questioner: About the exposure of her feet, and he did not refer to the sole or the top. He did not refer to the sole or the top.
The Shaykh : And did he say that she must pray in a long shirt because of the exposure of the feet?
The questioner: ... I am asking you because Ibn Taymiyyah's statement confused me...
The Shaykh : Why are you blaming me? Why don't you answer me?
The questioner: I am not sure.
The Shaykh : Okay, that is the answer. Say that you are not sure, and I will be satisfied with that. You will remember and tell me, or you will not remember and not tell me. I will not ask you why you are not sure. This is the present situation. The important thing is that I tell you to review the issue only regarding Ibn Taymiyyah, so that I can correct my old understanding of Ibn Taymiyyah, that he distinguishes between the top of the feet and the sole of the feet. So that the second time I say that Ibn Taymiyyah erred because he contradicted the verse. I know that Ibn Taymiyyah says that the woman is entirely 'awrah, her entire face and feet. So now, if he says one is praying with her feet exposed, I consider this unlikely from Ibn Taymiyyah.
The questioner: Because what triggered the research on Ibn Taymiyyah was the distinction between the woman's clothing inside prayer and her clothing outside prayer, meaning outside her house. So when he started the research, he distinguished between the two, and for the sake of this distinction...
The Shaykh : No problem, I have not made a mistake with you now. I tell you to review the research and give us the conclusion about Ibn Taymiyyah. As for the Sharia aspect, it is obligatory for the woman to cover the top of her feet inside and outside of prayer. And the correct Islamic logic is that it is obligatory for the woman not to be lenient with what she is obligated to cover outside of prayer inside of prayer. Rather, if the opposite were said, we would say that is better. If we wanted to work with analogical reasoning (qiyas), but we do not work with analogical reasoning as long as Allah has relieved us of it with texts. Do you have anything else?
The questioner : May Allah grant you well-being.
The Shaykh: Peace be upon you.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.