Hijab vs. Niqaab

Hai guys...

I have came accross many opinions regarding on the Hijab and Niqaab (purdah) wearing... and some of the people claimed tht by wearing Niqaab, will show the woman's Taqwa is higher than those who are wearing normal Hijab.. Is that true?? Can someone being judge by the length of head cover she wears even though bth niqaab and hijab are used to cover woman's aurat?

I can see there's several topics in AE already discussed on headscarft or Hijab wearing.. but there's no topic yet to discussed on the usage of Hijab vs. Niqaab (should I put it as versus?)

here i quote one statement from an article:

source: http://www.islamfortoday.com/niqaab.htm

I am not against niqaab to be used by other Islam women just would like to know other members opinions. Coz for me, wearing normal Hijab is the best practice.

The fundamentalism that is perceived in the West is very different that the heterodoxy that is perceived from an Islamic perspective, and this subject is one of many in which some of those seen from an Islamic perspective as "extreme" are more liberal than orthodoxy. Thus I will first try to briefly summarize the ruling in the four Sunni schools, which is a ruling that has been maintained for centuries:

In the Hanafi school, the relied upon position is that the Niqaab is Wajib (necessary, and there exists a slight difference between necessity and obligation (Fard) in this school unlike in others). There are many notable scholars however who leave room for dispensation, and as such there is Ikthilaf (difference of opinion).

In the Shafi`i school the relied upon position is that the Niqaab is Wajib, the lesser position is that it is recommendable (Sunnah). The Shafi`i school is stricter on this matter than the Hanafi school.

In the Maliki school the relied upon position is that it is reccomendable, the stricter view of necessity is lesser in this school. This is the least strict school on this particular subject.

In the Hanbali school it seems the relied upon position is that it is Wajib, but I am least familliar with the rulings in this school on this subject.

In any case, all four schools unanimously agree that Niqaab is part of Islam and that it is at least recommendable. More liberal views are considered heterodox and possible heresies, from this perspective.

For many non-Muslims and Muslims who are disconnected from tradition, these views may seem like extreme, fundamentalist and so on. Whatever one calls them, they are none other than the orthodoxy that has prevailed in the Islamic world for centuries.

Hijaab & Niqaab

In Malaysia we follow shafie... but majority of us use normal Hijab...

here i quote:-

source: http://www.islamfortoday.com/niqaabtara.htm

I think normal Hijab has done enough to fulfill the requirement

As mentioned cahaya, the Qur'an is not the sole source. This is a subject of Fiqh (jurisprudence), and there are at least 3 more sources for this. In the Shafi`i Madhhab, it seems to me that Niqaab as Wajib is more relied upon. The other view is that it is Sunnah, and it is certainly possible for this view to be followed in Malaysia. It is rather complex:

The Shafi`i Madhhab has differentiated, with regard to face-veil (niqab) and covering the hands in public, between it being a qualified order (amr) connected with self-respect (muru'a) rather than an obligation in itself (wajib), however, the conclusive position seems indeed to be the latter as you said. Al-Shirbini said in Mughni al-Muhtaj: "The obvious meaning of the words of the Two Shaykhs [Nawawi and Rafi`i] is that covering (satr) is obligatory in itself (wajib li-dhatih)." Yet the Madhhab *allows* exposing the hands and face if there is no fear of enticement (fitna), especially in trading, witnessing, engagement and marriage, and other transactions, as they are NOT part of nakedness (`awra), and *commands* it in Hajj, although some have deduced that in the context of prohibited gazes they ARE, as related from al-Subki by al-Shirbini and favored by Dr. Sa`id al-Buti in his book Ila Kulli Fatatin Tu'minu bilLah ("To Every Young Woman That Believes in Allah"). Some cite al-Haytami's assertion in al-Fatawa al-Kubra (1:199): "The sum of our [Shafi`i] Madhhab is that Imam al-Haramayn [Ibn al-Juwayni] related consensus (ijma`) over the permissibility for women to go out bare-faced but men must lower their gazes." In Hashiyat Sharh al-Idah fi Manasik al-Hajj (p. 276) al-Haytami repeats this ruling but adds: "This is not contradicted by the consensus over her being commanded to cover her face. The fact that she is commanded to do so for the general welfare does not presuppose its obligatoriness." And (p. 178): "Her need to cover her face stems only from her fear that someone's gaze might lead to a sexual impropriety (fitna), even if we say that it is not obligatory (wajib) for her to cover her face in the public thoroughfares as we have determined elsewhere." This is similar to Qadi `Iyad al-Maliki's assertion of "Consensus (Ijma`) that it is not obligatory for her to cover her face while walking down her street but it is a sunna, and that it is obligatory for men to lower their gaze." The Shafi`is cite this ruling and the Yemeni Shaykh Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn `Abd Al-Rahman ibn Hasan ibn `Abd al-Bari al-Ahdal (1277-1352) even recommends it in his book `Umdat al-Mufti wal-Mustafti (3:90-91), an abridgment of a collection of books of fatawa which is of great significance given the lateness of the author. He apparently ignored al-Shirbini's comment in the Mughni: "The statement of the Qadi [`Iyad] is weak." At the same time, al-Nawawi in al-Rawda and al-Shirbini in al-Iqna` and Mughni al-Muhtaj both report that Imam al-Haramayn clearly stipulated that the stranger's gaze to a woman's face is forbidden (haram) whether or not there is fear of fitna [short of a valid excuse in the Law such as one of the transactions mentioned] and that "women are therefore forbidden to leave the house barefaced (saafiraat), by agreement of the [law-abiding and knowledgeable] Muslims... since it is more appropriate and decorous in the Law to block the avenue of enticement." The latter ruling takes precedence in the Shafi`i School just as al-Nawawi (especially al-Rawda) takes precedence over al-Haytami. Furthermore, al-Haytami's Fatawa and Sharh al-Idah come last even in the hierarchy of his own books[;] one would have to adduce his Tuhfat al-Muhtaj which is more authoritative, but not more so than the Rawda. It remains to double-check Imam al-Haramayn's actual statement about consensus; however, none of his works is actually authoritative in the Madhhab by itself.

As for the legal category of the face-veil, it hinges on the aforesaid difference of opinion but the latter disappears in case of fear of enticement. Thus you have [1] the ruling of sunna or desirability of covering the face without obligation, which is preponderant in three of the Schools; [2] the obligation of covering the face in all the Schools in case of fear of sexual enticement; and the severest view, [3] the need to cover the face to prevent a stranger's gaze even without fear of enticement, especially in urban settings.

A Reader on the Muslim Veil (Hijab-Niqab) - Shaykh GF Haddad

here i like to share this statement which give me good explanation on Niqaab practise:-

source: refer to my first post. tq

Your welcome cahaya, but I would like to emphasize I try not to hold personal opinions on the matter simply because I am not educated enough to do so. But if I have to, from my limited learning it seems the evidences are stronger for the Niqab as Sunnah than as a Wajib. I would also like to point out that just as my personal view is not a scholarly source, neither is that of Michael Young; and his views are heterodox. In addition, the scholars he relies upon do not take orthodox positions or implement orthodox methodologies on the matter. I am not saying this for one to agree or disagree with him, but I am pointing out how it is perceived in orthodoxy whether one agrees with it or not.

Iskender Bey ALBO, one may attribute it to eastern tradition but if we are speaking cultural influences it is so that in what Muslims classically define as westerns, namely the North-African era, there are Amazigh (berber) tribes such as the Tuareg amongst whom the men cover their faces as well. From an orthodox perspective, the face veil for women is a religious matter and the reasons for it are found in the sources for Islamic law.

Seko, it indeed defines and regulates itself. One could discuss if this is historically justified, if it is scholarly justified and if it is religiously justified from the primary sources. In my opinion it is in all three, but I can understand others disagreeing. The same can be said for hierarchy and influence, and from a historical perspective all thoughts and practice are to be taken into consideration. However, orthodoxy is what has dominated and dominates up to this day though evidently less as before. Because of this, our historical focus ought to consider orthodoxy first just like we would consider orthodoxy and catholicism in Christianity first, before exploring the views of that what they deem heterodox or heretic. Unfortunately this is often not that often done for as far as Islam is concerned, under the disguise of objectivity but in neglect of historicity. This is at least what I experience from my orientalist studies in classes and literature, and aside of historicity my personal giving of much value to orthodoxy emphasises the discontent.

I know Mr Seko will move the topic here...

Well I understand ur concern mr hamoudeh... but my purpose in having this topic is to acknowledge muslims bros and sisters opinions regarding the practice of Hijab and Niqaab wearing... It is for sure tht for us to confirm a certain Hukum in Islam is beyond our capabilities due to our limitation in Islam knowledges...

You know me well Cahaya!

It did take me a while to bring the thread here though.