Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SoRoUsH

Awrah

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

I recently read the following article, and I am wondering could someone please provide authentic fiqhi hadith to support these claims.

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/prayer-salat-according-five-islamic-schools-law-part-1#wajib-covering-during-salat

I am wondering where is considered awrah according to shia fiqh?

I know that in sunni fiqh the area from the navel until the bottom of the knees needs to be covered.

However, in the article above that does not seem to be the case for shias.

So, I'd like to see a few fiqhi authentic hadiths on this topic.

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam Sister

I think it is less to do with hadiths but more to do with Intepretation of Quranic verses but I think what must be done is precaution so if you are not sure then you must cover from navel to knee in front of all else except your wife. I am yet to come across a Fiqhi hadith which states the awrah of a man so I think it might be a ruling based on ijtihad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

http://rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-2/was2002.html#20

ÈÇÈ ÍÏ ÇáÚæÑÉ ÇáÊí íÌÈ ÓÊÑåÇ --The Chapter on the Limit of the Awrah and That Which is Obligatory to Cover

These hadiths say that the thigh is not part of the awrah. For the man, the awrah consists of the two private parts, the front and the back, alone.

This is the absolute minimum for a man. For a woman I believe most say the entire body is awrah with the exception of the hands, feet, and face. Clearly if you have the clothes by which to cover more, then that is better. It is narrated that Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã bought three pieces of clothing: An izaar (a piece of material you wrap around your waist or navel) which he wore to his knees, a qamees (thobe or long shirt) to the top of his ankles, and wore a ridaa' (a shortened cloak).

[5843] 7 Ü æÚä ÇáÍÓíä Èä ãÍãÏ ¡ Úä ãÚáì Èä ãÍãÏ ¡ Úä ÇáÍÓä Èä Úáí ÇáæÔÇÁ ¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Úä ÚÇÆÐ ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÎÏíÌÉ ¡ Úä ãÚáì Èä ÎäíÓ ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) ÞÇá : Åä ÚáíÇð ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) ßÇä ÚäÏßã ÝÃÊì Èäí ÏíæÇä ÝÇÔÊÑì ËáÇËå ÃËæÇÈ ÈÏíäÇÑ ¡ ÇáÞãíÕ Åáì ÝæÞ ÇáßÚÈ ¡ æÇáÅÒÇÑ Åáì äÕÝ ÇáÓÇÞ ¡ æÇáÑÏÇÁ ãä íÏíå Åáì ËÏííå æãä ÎáÝå Åáì Åáííå ¡ Ëã ÑÝÚ íÏíå Åáì ÇáÓãÇÁ Ýáã íÒá íÍãÏ Çááå Úáì ãÇ ßÓÇå ÍÊì ÏÎá ãäÒáå ¡ Ëã ÞÇá : åÐÇ ÇááÈÇÓ ÇáÐí íäÈÛí ááãÓáãíä Ãä íáÈÓæå : ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÚÈÏÇááå ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) : æáßä áÇ ÊÞÏÑæä Ãä ÊáÈÓæåÇ åÐÇ Çáíæã æáæ ÝÚáäÇ áÞÇáæÇ : ãÌäæä ¡ æáÞÇáæÇ : ãÑÇÆí ¡ æÇááå ÚÒ æÌá íÞæá : ( æËíÇÈß ÝØåÑ )(1) ÞÇá : æËíÇÈß ÇÑÝÚåÇ áÇÊÌÑåÇ ¡ ÝÅÐÇ ÞÇã ÞÇÆãäÇ ßÇä åÐÇ ÇááÈÇÓ .

http://www.rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-5/w2.html

However, many early Muslims couldn't afford this and just wore an izaar. However, this is the awrah.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

...

These hadiths say that the thigh is not part of the awrah. For the man, the awrah consists of the two private parts, the front and the back, alone.

This is the absolute minimum for a man. For a woman I believe most say the entire body is awrah with the exception of the hands, feet, and face. Clearly if you have the clothes by which to cover more, then that is better. It is narrated that Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã bought three pieces of clothing: An izaar (a piece of material you wrap around your waist or navel) which he wore to his knees, a qamees (thobe or long shirt) to the top of his ankles, and wore a ridaa' (a shortened cloak).

...

However, many early Muslims couldn't afford this and just wore an izaar. However, this is the awrah.

(salam)

(salam) brother...

I'm a bit confused.

You initially mentioned the thigh isn't part of the awrah, but then you mentioned izaar covers the thigh and it is part of the awrah.

Could you please clarify this?

How about the area between the navel until the front private parts?

What must be covered?

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just saying that when you wear an izaar, it is recommended that the bottom of it stop between the knee and half the leg. It shouldn't go lower than that. That's what the hadith of Imam Ali عليه السلام says. Just trying to show what he wore, and the fact that although this is the awrah, the sahaba would usually wear izaars that would start above their navel, and go down to their knees. It would be tied at the navel, and they wouldn't be allowed to lower it to the ground, because this is blameworthy. So, the Muslim men, to distinguish themselves from women and other reasons, would raise their garments to the knee or a little lower. That's all I was saying. It's not talking about the awrah. It was just an aside. You absolutely must cover your front and backside and that's it.

Wa assalaamu aleykum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just saying that when you wear an izaar, it is recommended that the bottom of it stop between the knee and half the leg. It shouldn't go lower than that. That's what the hadith of Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã says. Just trying to show what he wore, and the fact that although this is the awrah, the sahaba would usually wear izaars that would start above their navel, and go down to their knees. It would be tied at the navel, and they wouldn't be allowed to lower it to the ground, because this is blameworthy. So, the Muslim men, to distinguish themselves from women and other reasons, would raise their garments to the knee or a little lower. That's all I was saying. It's not talking about the awrah. It was just an aside. You absolutely must cover your front and backside and that's it.

Wa assalaamu aleykum

Excellent.

Thank You Brother.

So, short shorts are permitted, technically? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a hadith of Imam jafar sadiq  (AS) and as clearly written in the Quran, the hands and face of a woman can be revealed while the rest is awrah. For a man it is to cover himself from the navel to the knee but the rest must also be covered. The ankles should be covered which Sunnis don't believe as Abu Bakr didn't cover his ankles 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • NO, IT IS HARAM. SENDING GIFT TO HER AND CONGRATULATING HER FOR HER FALLACIOUS MARRIAGE IS ALSO HARAM.
    • Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib(as)   I have avoided the discussion of “The God” and aspects and working, so we do not get distracted and dwell in the realm( of Evil, Mercy, Love, help, present/absent, why does he not act, or why he/ she is silent, why allow all this, that is going on ) that is out of our domain for this discussion at this point in time. If there is a need, I(Layman opinion) will say, The one who  created me, doesn't own me anything, beyond guidance. If anything exists it's the lack of follow through or rejection of the guidance. I.e. If the humans allow conditions to develop, and there is oppression. Where is God is not the question. Question, is Humanity has been guided at two levels ( inner and outer), rejection of both is the issue not why God does not take away this evil person that we elected or tolerated until he/she turned on us(we were fine up untill it was happening to others). We human need to do our job, instead of having entitlement mentality, and deflect it to it's your fault God., where are you and why you do not help. We have been helped. Intellect/Guidance( brief understanding, as a layman). Maybe not the best example but it will suffice, We would not expect the Mars rover to dwell in the realm of our working, instead it should be concerned with its prime directive, and we are to provide it guidance to accomplish its work. There are may misunderstanding, in  definition, version, understanding due to linguistic, terminology(old/new), cultural (East/West) and lack of Conceptual discussion at the basic fundamental level instead of technicalities and mechanic(which is subconsciously embedded in the way we have been groomed in schools and universities). A charged and contentious environment does not help in getting to any resolution. It's usually tit for tat, and pride get in the way in different threads a that were responding to targeted and side issue out of context. No one to the best of my knowledge and understanding denies we are limited creations in all  aspects. Your creation and Your surrounding creation(s) , are proof of something that  can not be denied. So, there is a Cause, the unlimited, infinitely powerful, Unknown/Unseen Source of all this. What you(non Muslims) call that source is not relevant - you can call it a system,  I call it God. So, there are no Atheists or Agnostic here. What an Atheist/ Agnostic may be, saying is that they do not believe in the God of Islam as “presented “or as understood or as described. That is a very different issue. But this issue, gets mixed up with other issues dealing with the mechanics in other threads which are on specific topics. Getting back to the Topic. We turn now to Stephen Hawking. He proposes M-theory, a variant of string theory, to explain the origins of the universe. The conclusion of his last book, The Grand Design, states:
      Stephen Hawking is a SME ( Subject Matter Expert) in his field of Study. If he gave his scientific theory and left it at that. I would not care nor it should be my concern, as there are many SMEs and have their theories in the Scientific world about may things.  His connecting it to and concluding that there is no need for god( his understanding of what god is to him). Is the issue, I am highlighting it not only because of what he said, because he or people like him are followed and the laypeople use these ideas to formulate their ideology. This is something, prevalent, using  fiction which they call ‘Science” as a tool to attack Divine Religion. This is where this talk and connection / implication that this is the god and of you can’t pray to or ask for help form gravity, or physical laws are not empathetic, and are cold  and have no concern for the humans ….This connection makes no sense. Comparing apples and oranges and mixing stuff that is confusing. This mentally is delusional and it stems out of misunderstanding of the concepts of pray, or help, mercy, etc..or implications that ignorant people believe in miracles and angels. Or we can’t carbon date the text, or evidence of such and such event. In short ignorant conclusions by apparently learned people in their field of study Trickle down effect, and the lay Atheists/Agnostics take these talking point and formulate an opinion and argument with it. Objectivity is also an issue, here. Double standards. Scientific theories are not subject to the same rigorous, and shredding mentality.   Its 5000, 2000, 1400 old stuff, we are Technically advanced. We forget that this advancement is in Technology,(only). The basic alphabet  in terms of Social behavior, is as old as the cave people.  Moving beyond, Mechanics, working, Techinacilities and this attitude of the best generation to exist, every preceding generation had the same attitude. and we will be looked at and our theories considers as old and outdated by the new generations.  Its a Point is time assessment.  What are the benefits of the revealed information- i.e Revealed to us through our struggle and study through discovery of us and whats around us.? Do we follow the Laws, derived from this new knowledge?  If not what are we rally arguing about. If a person can't even at least in Theory acknowledge the laws of Nature for our(Humanity)  Benefit. If you were to do that, you may rethink you position, because you may realize that you have been arguing against something that Natural laws actually prove.  This is what concerns me, at this point. Why can't the objective, learned and "technically" advanced people  see that and make this connection?  
    • The nature of the Existence is to exist. Thats all.
    • If the father doesn't approve of it, and didn't leave the door open for further contact, then that's it. They are not being disrespectful. Saying "no" should not forcibly come with an explanation, thus you can't demand it nor force them to listen to you. It is called freedom, and that is more sacred than anything you can tell them.
×