The Companions' women used to go outside the houses for a need, so how did 'Umar view Sawdah?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The apparent meaning of the hadith is that the women of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) used to go outside the city, outside the houses, to relieve themselves, and 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) saw Sawdah. How is this? Was he close to this place...?
The Shaykh : Where does Sawdah come out from? Where does she come out from?
The questioner : From the house of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : All right, and they were sitting, did he see her?
The questioner : He saw her merely for the act of going out.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: ...
The Shaykh : But we know that if some of the women who are heedless of their conduct heard a hadith like this, they would say: Why do you prevent us from going out? We want to walk outside the town. The sidewalks are clean and the streets are lit, and people are going this way and coming that way. Why do you prevent us from going out to walk?
We say the difference is very clear. What is it?
First: that women going out is for a need, not for recreation or strolling.
Second: that security in that time was much greater than security in this time, and the ruling revolves with its cause, in existence and in absence. Therefore, if we feared fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) from a mahram (a relative one may not marry) being alone with a woman, we would prevent him from doing so. For example, a woman has a brother through breastfeeding, and she is a beautiful young woman, and the brother is also young and his religion is not that strong, and fitnah is feared if he is alone with her. Do we prevent him or not?
We prevent him, and no honor is in it. Even if he said, "How can you prevent me when I am a mahram?" we would say, "Because of the fear of fitnah, because of the fear of fitnah."
All right, someone might say: If it is because of the fear of fitnah, then allow a woman to be alone with a man if fitnah is not feared for a non-mahram man, because the ruling revolves with its cause?
We say this is not possible for us to do, because it contradicts the explicit text. Then, if Satan is the third among them, what do you think of two where the third is Satan? Yes, no matter what, even if he is an old man whose eyebrows have covered his eyes, and the woman is also an old woman, every fall has a catcher. Even if it were only that he approaches her and remembers his youth, and she is the same. Satan flows through the son of Adam like blood.
Therefore, we say: We restrict ourselves to what has been transmitted, even if we attribute a cause that is derived or may be explicitly stated in some places. If fitnah is present, even the permissible is prevented.
The Shaykh : Where does Sawdah come out from? Where does she come out from?
The questioner : From the house of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : All right, and they were sitting, did he see her?
The questioner : He saw her merely for the act of going out.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: ...
The Shaykh : But we know that if some of the women who are heedless of their conduct heard a hadith like this, they would say: Why do you prevent us from going out? We want to walk outside the town. The sidewalks are clean and the streets are lit, and people are going this way and coming that way. Why do you prevent us from going out to walk?
We say the difference is very clear. What is it?
First: that women going out is for a need, not for recreation or strolling.
Second: that security in that time was much greater than security in this time, and the ruling revolves with its cause, in existence and in absence. Therefore, if we feared fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) from a mahram (a relative one may not marry) being alone with a woman, we would prevent him from doing so. For example, a woman has a brother through breastfeeding, and she is a beautiful young woman, and the brother is also young and his religion is not that strong, and fitnah is feared if he is alone with her. Do we prevent him or not?
We prevent him, and no honor is in it. Even if he said, "How can you prevent me when I am a mahram?" we would say, "Because of the fear of fitnah, because of the fear of fitnah."
All right, someone might say: If it is because of the fear of fitnah, then allow a woman to be alone with a man if fitnah is not feared for a non-mahram man, because the ruling revolves with its cause?
We say this is not possible for us to do, because it contradicts the explicit text. Then, if Satan is the third among them, what do you think of two where the third is Satan? Yes, no matter what, even if he is an old man whose eyebrows have covered his eyes, and the woman is also an old woman, every fall has a catcher. Even if it were only that he approaches her and remembers his youth, and she is the same. Satan flows through the son of Adam like blood.
Therefore, we say: We restrict ourselves to what has been transmitted, even if we attribute a cause that is derived or may be explicitly stated in some places. If fitnah is present, even the permissible is prevented.