Definitive proof that the Hijab is not only a purely socio-cultural construct

[Raganimo]

Gurey, the waxiy is not only comprised of the Qur'an but it also includes the Sunnah of the Prophet pbuh. The Qur'an itself is technically a mutawatir hadith and was preserved by the same group of people who preserved the hadith, using the exact same method. A wholesale rejection of hadith is therefore usually followed by rejection of the Qur'an itself. There are ahadith that are literally as authentic as the Qur'an itself since they have reached a level of tawaatur I.e. they've been transmitted through so many independent, unbroken chains of narration, by such a diverse group of people, that they impossibly could have conspired to fabricate them.

This isn't about "literalism" sxb, stop creating false dichotomies to justify adopting a more lax interpretation. You're practically going against the ijmaac of 1400+ of scholars within all four Madhabs including even the Dhahiris and imam Malik whom you cited. Does this make sense to you? That some westernised, modernist pseudo-scholars would have a deeper understanding of the Diin than heavyweights like Shafici, Malik, Ibn Hanbal and Abu Hanifah?

The oldest Hadith collection is not imam Malik's muwatta but rather Saxiifat Ibn Hamaam. Look it up.

There is nobody who questions the fact that the hijab is waajib except modernist revisionists. As for the niqab, then the vast majority of scholars only considered it as optional but it's a confirmed sunnah and not something which can be rejected. It is certainly not Haram.

All of these were non-issues until Muslims were colonised by the West at the turn of the last century, by the way. Then all of a sudden revisionism became a thing.

[gegiroor]

Gurey, the waxiy is not only comprised of the Qur'an but it also includes the Sunnah of the Prophet pbuh. The Qur'an itself is technically a mutawatir hadith and was preserved by the same group of people who preserved the hadith, using the exact same method. A wholesale rejection of hadith is therefore usually followed by rejection of the Qur'an itself. There are ahadith that are literally as authentic as the Qur'an itself since they have reached a level of tawaatur I.e. they've been transmitted through so many independent, unbroken chains of narration, by such a diverse group of people, that they impossibly could have conspired to fabricate them.

This isn't about "literalism" sxb, stop creating false dichotomies to justify adopting a more lax interpretation. You're practically going against the ijmaac of 1400+ of scholars within all four Madhabs including even the Dhahiris and imam Malik whom you cited. Does this make sense to you? That some westernised, modernist pseudo-scholars would have a deeper understanding of the Diin than heavyweights like Shafici, Malik, Ibn Hanbal and Abu Hanifah?

The oldest Hadith collection is not imam Malik's muwatta but rather Saxiifat Ibn Hamaam. Look it up.

There is nobody who questions the fact that the hijab is waajib except modernist revisionists. As for the niqab, then the vast majority of scholars only considered it as optional but it's a confirmed sunnah and not something which can be rejected. It is certainly not Haram.

All of these were non-issues until Muslims were colonised by the West at the turn of the last century, by the way. Then all of a sudden revisionism became a thing.

Well said!

[gegiroor]

Duplicate

[NoAngst]

There is nobody who questions the fact that the hijab is waajib except modernist revisionists.

Yet another pious Muslim who shares platform with Islamophobes and right-wing extremists who deny plurality and diversity of practice and interpretation within Islam.

[Leftist]

A great example of the unique tolerance & magnanimity of secular-liberal values & governance, the greatest form of governance mankind has witnessed thus far in the Human Experiment on Planet Earth.

One wears a hijab, the other wears a bikini; both respect each other, even as they differ with each other. Both compete against each other with a friendly spirit. No one is condemning the other to hell; no one is calling the other a whore or a prude; no one is telling the other how to live, or to worship, or to walk, or to dress. Because of the Universal & Ebbe-bestowed liberal rights of Freedom of thought, belief, worship, dress, & speech. And what Almighty Ebbe has given, NONE, not even armed with holy nusoos, can take away.

Again, this is ONLY possible in a secular-liberal society and under a secular-liberal governance, which is why there is absolutely no room for any religious theocracy or governance, ever again. If the Mahdi and/or Nabi Ceesa come out tomorrow, they will have no choice but to accept secular-liberal values & governance.

Cuz we sure as heck ain't going back to the dark Jahili days of religious-rule, where corrupt clerics thundered from atop minbar-pulpits shaming women's bodies and threatening them with boiling hellfire if they didn't cover up. Yeah, you want women to cover up, but somehow, sex-slaves/concubinage is xalaal for you because it was practiced by the Salaf <----- Fuck that noise. There is no space for the stench of hypocrisy in the Golden Information Age of Shaykh Google and Alaamah Wikipedia.

[Leftist]

This topic reminds me of this history book.

I read her book. I could be mistaken, but from what I remember, the author was researching the hijab from a strictly academic/journalistic perspective, not from a theological/religious perspective, which is why she didn't make any judgement calls, like I did in this thread. But everything I wrote, can also be found in her book; I just went a step further and delved into the actual theological basis(or lack thereof) of the hijab. As I have proven repeatedly on this thread, there is no religious/theological basis for the hijab/jilbab/niqab whatsoever, it was then and is now a purely socio-cultural construct, as is proven in the many original source historical texts I quoted.

[GalliumerianSlayer]

They want to hijack our beautiful culture, say no to ARABISATION OF SOMALI peninsula