Jump to content
Sumerian

Showing body parts after proposal

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, eloquence said:

But how could you find her attractive before and not after that? What would change that?

I am not sure that you understood me correctly.

I am speaking of such a scenario where you do not see your spouse without a hijab during proposal/engagement and after marriage you do see her and you do not find her attractive now that you have seen her.

This does not mean that you necessarily found her physically attractive before marriage as he had hijab on but that you could have been neutral or imagined something ells and later on when you do get to see her, you find her physically unattractive. Theres a possibility of that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brothers and sister it is appaling that we are considering breakups as a norm.  This is not right at all. This kills the whole family system. Divorce is allowed but look at Prophet SAW and imams have not divorced even the worst ones who poisoned them. Divorce is most unlikely act infront of God.

I think looking at a women in hijab one can easily imagine how high she is 

How beautiful she is

What is the colour of her skin etc....

But please donot objectfy women.

If some one is obese she will remian obese in hijab as well as without hijab.

We never know as men when we struck with a medical issue and got our body not like as young as before.

Treat women with love and respect.

@2Timeless no man or women is always right, it is Prophet SAW and Imams are right.

Secondly no one has bothered to get the proof from Seestani website.

Edited by Zulfiqar1472

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IbnSina said:

I am not sure that you understood me correctly.

I am speaking of such a scenario where you do not see your spouse without a hijab during proposal/engagement and after marriage you do see her and you do not find her attractive now that you have seen her.

This does not mean that you necessarily found her physically attractive before marriage as he had hijab on but that you could have been neutral or imagined something ells and later on when you do get to see her, you find her physically unattractive. Theres a possibility of that as well.

Before going to marriage please have a look at your parent marraige pictures and then find them how thay have changed and everyone will change.

Trust me even if I got miss perfect but a foul mouth and selfish girl is not acceptable as compare to a little chubby but who talks with respect and understands the realities is far more better.

For me most of the women are beautiful and the way you can treat them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zulfiqar1472 said:

Brothers and sister it is appaling that we are considering breakups as a norm.  This is not right at all. This kills the whole family system. Divorce is allowed but look at Prophet SAW and imams have not divorced even the worst ones who poisoned them. Divorce is most unlikely act infront of God.

I think looking at a women in hijab one can easily imagine how high she is 

How beautiful she is

What is the colour of her skin etc....

But please donot objectfy women.

If some one is obese she will remian obese in hijab as well as without hijab.

We never know as men when we struck with a medical issue and got our body not like as young as before.

Treat women with love and respect.

@2Timeless no man or women is always right, it is Prophet SAW and Imams are right.

Secondly no one has bothered to get the proof from Seestani website.

Brother what do you mean? I gave you the link to his website where he says this!

If a man was committed to marrying a particular woman, he is permitted to look at those parts of her body such as face, hair, neck, hands, wrists, and legs, but without sexual desire.

https://www.sistani.org/english/book/49/2414/

@AliDawood looks are very much valued in Islam. There are many hadiths from the Imams (as) where they recommend marrying women with certain bodily features. In any case, the ruling says it is allowed.

You say this isn't indicative of men, but science disagrees. Men care about looks way more than females and are more visual. It is simple really and I don't know why this is controversial. I live in the West too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AliDawood said:

Salaams, as a guy living in the west I disagree with a lot of what brother @Sumerian has put forth, not to mention it makes men come across as animals. As a few others have mentioned in this thread, such a ruling comes with its context and certain conditions need to be met before the sister would remove her hijab. Contrary to what's being portrayed, any man who is "99% commited" for the appropriate reasons would not and should not refuse after seeing his potential spouse without her hijab. The only time I can imagine this happening is if it's either done with the wrong intentions or the man values looks over taqwa (which is already islamicallg wrong). If someone's confused and can't make a decision unless he sees the sister without hijab, does she really want to be marrying such a person anyway? What happens years down the line when the upkeep of outwardly beauty becomes difficult?

Apologies if this was lengtht, I just felt the need to clarify that the stance being portrayed in this thread is in no way indicative of most guys, but moreso opinions of individuals. Before anyone asks or is asked to be seen without hijab, please consult an Alim and don't assume most men to be like this

Thank you! 

Faith in mankind restored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zulfiqar1472 said:

Before going to marriage please have a look at your parent marraige pictures and then find them how thay have changed and everyone will change.

Trust me even if I got miss perfect but a foul mouth and selfish girl is not acceptable as compare to a little chubby but who talks with respect and understands the realities is far more better.

For me most of the women are beautiful and the way you can treat them.

Of course, I agree with you. I am merely bringing up a point regarding how it could turn out for some couples.

Anyways, I think people are exaggerating in their mind what this actually is about (asking to show oneself without a hijab), just like I wrote in my initial post on this thread.

Its like people ask themselves what does this actually mean in a practical manner because they do not know, then answer that question themselves as well with a possibly worst case scenario and then proceeds to get upset about it. It is really a non issue.

Edited by IbnSina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to appreciate the honesty. There are too many people who get married with the intention of fixing their spouses and people also intentionally get married to less attractive people because they know they will always have upper hand in marriage. Being stuck in a marriage with a person who thinks you are unattractive is hell. For most of men, marriage is NOT their only option for relationship. I doubt that many men are so honest that they are determined to find the most suitable spouse. 

Isn't it like sharing intimate pictures with a na-mehram? What if he tells other men after seeing you? I think this is similar to the pressure western women feel to show their bodies at the beach, so that people can judge them on their fitness. After I got married, I heard comments about my body from my female relatives that I had never heard before. Obviously someone was talking to them about me. 

Edited by rkazmi33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Brother what do you mean? I gave you the link to his website where he says this!

If a man was committed to marrying a particular woman, he is permitted to look at those parts of her body such as face, hair, neck, hands, wrists, and legs, but without sexual desire.

https://www.sistani.org/english/book/49/2414/

@AliDawood looks are very much valued in Islam. There are many hadiths from the Imams (as) where they recommend marrying women with certain bodily features. In any case, the ruling says it is allowed.

You say this isn't indicative of men, but science disagrees. Men care about looks way more than females and are more visual. It is simple really and I don't know why this is controversial. I live in the West too.

@Sumerian I agree in that Islam does not ignore ones outwardly beauty, but where I disagree is the importance you're giving it and attributing that to Islam. With regards to your point about scientific studies, one needs to ask many questions before taking an article as the Bible. Who conducted the study (i.e. what was the motive?), who paid for the research, what was the target audience, sample size, etc... I don't conform my beliefs to the scientific finding of "today" because we all know the findings and results are ever-changing. I certainly wouldn't regard that article to be the truth since the culture and norm in the west is where women are objectified and they want that to be scientifically validated. Let's not be like the men who objectify women -- if we truly emulate the Ahlulbayt a.s, we would have the utmost respect for women, let alone hijabis.

With regards to Agha Sistani's ruling, as with all things, there's proper context and conditions that need to be met. This is the equivalent of someone taking a verse from the Quran and assuming it's a standalone verse. Perhaps you should send him an email and that would be a more fruitful discussion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rkazmi33 said:

Isn't it like sharing intimate pictures with a na-mehram? What if he tells other men after seeing you? I think this is similar to the pressure western women feel to show their bodies at the beach, so that people can judge them on their fitness. After I got married, I heard comments about my body from my female relatives that I had never heard before. Obviously someone was talking to them about me. 

If this is your main concern then you should wear hijab to the women gatherings.

Especially at weddings, when the girls take actual pictures and not just take a glance at you. Do you trust every single one of the girls there not to show your picture to her male relatives/friends? To respect your hijab like you respect it?

Anyways, a guy could marry you and then tell other men about you as well, everyone can act immoral if they want in any given situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rkazmi33 said:

Isn't it like sharing intimate pictures with a na-mehram?

No woman should ever do such a thing, sis. I know many women are extremely naive, but that should never happen. Men are like wolves.

2 hours ago, rkazmi33 said:

After I got married, I heard comments about my body from my female relatives that I had never heard before. Obviously someone was talking to them about me. 

How disrespectful. So your husband was discussing your body with other people? 

I'm glad you got rid of him. 

If he was unhappy about something he should have encouraged you to work out or pay for plastic surgery in worst case scenario. 

If you ever want to get married again you must be very observant. If the guy shows the least bit of disrespect towards you throw him in the rubbish bin. Coz that's where he belongs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carlzone said:

How disrespectful. So your husband was discussing your body with other people? 

I'm glad you got rid of him. 

If he was unhappy about something he should have encouraged you to work out or pay for plastic surgery in worst case scenario. 

If you ever want to get married again you must be very observant. If the guy shows the least bit of disrespect towards you throw him in the rubbish bin. Coz that's where he belongs. 

You would be surprised to know how many people get married to a person who is considered less attractive only because they want to have more power in marriage. I don't have a problem with showing hair but when people mention legs, it looks like men want to see their potential wives in a swimming suit and decide if they like what they see. That's an absurd idea and it can be very dangerous and easily misused by creeps and perverts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Brother what do you mean? I gave you the link to his website where he says this!

If a man was committed to marrying a particular woman, he is permitted to look at those parts of her body such as face, hair, neck, hands, wrists, and legs, but without sexual desire.

https://www.sistani.org/english/book/49/2414/

@AliDawood looks are very much valued in Islam. There are many hadiths from the Imams (as) where they recommend marrying women with certain bodily features. In any case, the ruling says it is allowed.

You say this isn't indicative of men, but science disagrees. Men care about looks way more than females and are more visual. It is simple really and I don't know why this is controversial. I live in the West too.

It looks like leg here means foot not the whole leg piece :grin:.

But need clarification from His excellence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AliDawood said:

@Sumerian I agree in that Islam does not ignore ones outwardly beauty, but where I disagree is the importance you're giving it and attributing that to Islam. With regards to your point about scientific studies, one needs to ask many questions before taking an article as the Bible. Who conducted the study (i.e. what was the motive?), who paid for the research, what was the target audience, sample size, etc... I don't conform my beliefs to the scientific finding of "today" because we all know the findings and results are ever-changing. I certainly wouldn't regard that article to be the truth since the culture and norm in the west is where women are objectified and they want that to be scientifically validated. Let's not be like the men who objectify women -- if we truly emulate the Ahlulbayt a.s, we would have the utmost respect for women, let alone hijabis.

With regards to Agha Sistani's ruling, as with all things, there's proper context and conditions that need to be met. This is the equivalent of someone taking a verse from the Quran and assuming it's a standalone verse. Perhaps you should send him an email and that would be a more fruitful discussion 

No, it is very important. If you want I can quote many hadiths in this regard.

The context is clear, and the fatwa in Arabic is even clearer, the conditions are committment to get married and chance at success. Refer to @Abu Hadi comment in the first page, he explains this.

This is not the equivalent of taking a random Verse from the Qur'an, because he himself explains the context in his fatwa, and on his website.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:salam:

This thread is a good example of a ruling's understanding gone completely wrong due to modern customs and norms and as well as due to complete absence of knowledge of the rulings of the Ahl al-Sunnah on this matter. One of the vacuums the followers of a Marja’ have is the complete loss of context and historicity to these rulings. Let us first look at Sayyid Sīstānī’s ruling from his Minhāj al-Ṣāliḥīn (vol. 3, pg. 15, issue # 28):

Quote

 

يجوز لمن يريد ان يتزوج امرأة ان ينظر الى محاسنها كوجهها وشعرها ورقبتها وكفيها ومعاصمها وساقيها ونحو ذلك، ولا يشترط ان يكون ذلك باذنها ورضاها.

 نعم يشترط: ان لا يكون بقصد التلذذ الشهوي وان علم انه يحصل بالنظر اليها قهرًا. وان لا يخاف الوقوع في الحرام بسببه. كما يشترط ان لا يكون هناك مانع من التزويج بها فعلاً مثل ذات العدة واخت الزوجة. ويشترط ايضًا ان لا يكون مسبوقًا بحالها، وان يحتمل اختيارها وإلاّ فلا يجوز، والاحوط وجوبًا الاقتصار على ما إذا كان قاصدًا التزويج بها بالخصوص فلا يعم الحكم ما إذا كان قاصدًا لمطلق التزويج وكان بصدد تعيين الزوجة بهذا الاختبار، ويجوز تكرر النظر إذا لم يحصل الاطلاع عليها بالنظرة الاولى.

It is allowed for a man who intends on marrying a woman to look at her attractive features, such as her face, her hair, her neck, her hands, her wrists, her legs and so on. Her permission and satisfaction are not a condition for this.

Yes, the look is conditioned to the fact: 1) That this does not happen with the intention of lust, even if he knows lust will be inevitable due to looking at her. 2) That there is no fear of falling into sin due to it.[1] 3) Likewise, it is a condition for there to not be any obstacle to marrying her currently, for example she should not be in her waiting-period or be one’s wife’s sister. 4) It is also a condition that one not be aware of her condition from before, and that her selection is probable[2] – otherwise it is not allowed.

Obligatory precaution is that this look be only if he is intending to marry a specific woman and so the ruling is not generalized to if he is merely intending on getting married and is in the process of searching for a spouse through this method.[3] It is permissible to look multiple times if the information one is seeking is not acquired with the first glance.

This ruling is being extrapolated and interpreted from numerous traditions that were uttered under specific historical contexts and norms, whereas those norms have completely disappeared over the last century or so. These traditions are many, both in Sunnī and Shī’ī works and there is a lot of discussion on them and what they really prove. Nevertheless, most hair-covering women today will find this request from a man very degrading and uncomfortably risky today.

To put it even more bluntly, this idea that this is supposed to be something that is done as the "last step" or the "final step" after a decision has been made or a proposal has been given or something along those lines - these are all bogus explanations of the ruling - that is not what the ruling says. The ruling has nothing to do with any of that. In fact, this is talking about looking even before a proposal for marriage has been sent and permission or the satisfaction of the woman is not required. Classical scholars (unlike what Sayyid Sīstānī says) would say that this ruling is talking about someone who is merely interested in getting married, and is trying to find someone, even if he has not yet decided to marry any specific woman. In that situation, one of the things that is permissible for him to do is to look at the face, hands, hair and so on. 

All the Shī’ī jurists and other schools of thought (Sunnī and even Zaydī) say that her permission and her satisfaction is not required. Why do they mention this? Because the Mālikī school of thought believed that her permission is a condition, whereas no other Muslim school of thought agreed to this. The reason the Mālikīs would give is that this ruling would become open to abuse and everyone would just claim that they are looking to get married. Other jurists respond by saying that the conditions for the permissibility of looking are pretty clear and if someone decides to abuse this ruling and check out women, then that can and does happen even without having to resort to this ruling.

If permission is not required and her satisfaction is not required, then how is one supposed to look at the woman? This is where many Sunnī jurists have said that this happens when you are essentially checking out a woman without her knowledge. The Shī’ī scholars mean the same thing when they say her permission is not required – some Shī’ī scholars make this very clear. In fact, some say asking her permission will defeat the purpose as women are shy and will generally not just grant permission like that.

Words of some Shī’ī scholars:

Miqdād Fāḍil Suyūrī (d. 826 AH) in his al-Tanqīḥ al-Rā’i li-Mukhtaṣir al-Sharā’i (vol. 3, pg. 21):

Quote

 

 (الثانية) ان مع الإمكان المذكور لا يشترط اذنها و لا علمها بإرادة نكاحها و يجوز تكراره قائمة و ماشية

Second: With the possibility mentioned, her permission is not a condition, and neither is her knowledge with regards to him wanting to marry her. It is permissible to look multiple times, while she is standing and walking.

 

 

Muḥaqqiq Thānī (d. 940 AH) in Jāmi’ al-Maqāṣid fī Sharḥ al-Qawā’id (vol. 12, pg. 29) writes:

Quote

 

و لا يشترط استئذانها في النظر- خلافا لمالك - للعموم، بل لا ينبغي، لأنها ربما زينت نفسها و أخفت عيبها، ففات مقصود النظر.

Her permission is not a condition for looking – unlike Mālīk – due to generality (of the evidence), in fact, it is not appropriate (to seek permission), because she may beautify herself and hide her blemishes and the purpose of looking will be defeated.

 

 

Fāḍil Hindī Isfahānī (d. 1137 AH) in his Kashf al-Lithām (vol. 7, pg. 21) writes:

Quote

 

و إن لم يستأذنها للعموم، و لأنّه ربّما تعذّر مع الاستئذان أو زيّنت نفسها و تهيّأت فيفوت الغرض، خلافا لمالك

Even if he does not seek her permission, due to the generality (of the evidence), and perhaps it will become difficult after permission, or she may beautify herself and prepare herself, in which case the purpose (of looking) will be defeated – unlike the opinion of Mālik (who says permission is a condition).

 


Let us break down a few preliminaries to understand this ruling:

  1. Regarding looking at a free Muslim woman, there are three views:
    1. Some jurists say it is allowed to look at her face and hands (without lust)
    2. Some say it is allowed to look at her face and hands without lust, but only one glance (view of many of the past jurists)
    3. Some say it is not allowed to look at any part of the woman (with or without lust)
  2. Marriage is a contract agreed upon by two parties: a man and a woman
  3. Since it is a contract which resembles a "business transaction", both sides have the right to know who they are getting married to (just like in a business transaction, when you are exchanging money for a product, you need to know what the product is so there is no chance of fraud and deception)
    1. Although some Shī’ī jurists did say that this ruling is not applicable to women, because we have no traditions on it and allowing it would be an instance of Qiyās, majority of the scholars permitted the same thing for women (i.e. she can also look at a man when she is looking for a potential spouse)
  4. Hence, this ruling is an exception to that first ruling above (under all three different opinions) and says that a person (man or a woman) who is intending to get married and is looking for a potential spouse has the right to look at certain parts of their potential spouse
    1. Though if you notice, according to the proponents of the first view on looking, the face and hands are already allowed to be looked at – so it is only a question of looking at other parts of the body
  5. This is so that if they do end up proposing to them or decide to get married to them, they are not deceived - that they knew exactly what they were getting themselves into
  6. There is no condition to ask permission for a woman (or vice-versa)

The biggest debate is not on whether it is allowed to look or not, but the debate is over what is one allowed to look at? A great number of classical Shī’ī jurists limited this ruling to just the face and hands of a woman, and explicitly prohibited other parts such as the hair or other parts of her body. Furthermore, some jurists would say that if a man is unable to look at the woman himself, because she is overly covered, and is unable to get satisfactory knowledge about her condition, then he should send a woman to go and look for him. For example, al-Shahīd al-Thānī writes in his Masālik al-Afhām (vol. 7, pg. 40-41):

Quote

 

و ينبغي أن يكون قبل الخطبة، إذ لو كان بعدها و تركها لشقّ ذلك عليها و أوحشها. و لو لم يتيسّر له النظر بنفسه بعث إليها امرأة تتأمّلها و تصفها له، للتأسّي‌ فإنّ النبيّ صلّى اللّه عليه و آله و سلّم بعث أم سليم إلى امرأة و قال: انظري إلى عرقوبها، و شمّي معاطفها

It is appropriate for this look to take place before the proposal (is sent), because if it takes place after the proposal and he abandons her, it will be burdensome upon her and make her very uneasy. If it is not feasible for him to look at her himself, he should send a woman who can contemplate over her and describe her for him. This can be done as a following of the practice of the Prophet (p) as he sent Umm Sulaym to a woman and said: “Look at her ankles and smell her sides.”

1

When you look at the words of the classical jurists (Sunnī and Shī’ī), you will see that this ruling of looking is generally being implemented in day to day life – especially given the fact that we are discussing a context where her permission is not required, and she does not even know she is being looked at. There are traditions (in Sunnī and Shī’ī works) to back this up as well

In that scenario, if a woman happens to expose part of her leg while walking (as would happen quite often in those days), or part of her neck or shoulder is exposed, or she did not wear many layers of clothes and hence parts of her body would be observable (like the curves and size of her chest), or if part of her hair would be showing (as would also happen quite often in those days), or part of her arms would get exposed etc. then in those scenarios a man who is looking to get married can look at those parts of the body to get an idea of her. This is also why you find words of the scholars saying that this look can take place while she is standing, walking and sitting – a reference to just day to day activities and movements.

If I were to understand this ruling today myself (after reading the historical precedent of it, the discussions and the way earlier jurists were understanding it), I would say most men can get more than a decent idea of looks, shape and size of an average ḥijābī woman today if they look and observe her closely. Of course, if a woman dresses with a lot of layers where it is hard to tell anything, then in that case before he even sends a marriage proposal a woman who can be trusted can be sent to observe the woman and describe her roughly for him. This is not meant to be a detailed inspection.

There are further intricate discussions on some traditions that talk about a woman wearing “thin” or “gentle” clothing or fabric and that a man can look at her if she is wearing those. Whether this is referring to see-through clothing or just fewer layers of clothing or just clothing that is tighter is what is being disputed. Many believe it is referring to fewer layers and clothing that is tighter around the body, in which case her shape is a bit more observable.

Now since the legal ruling says her permission is not required for looking, this necessarily implies that with her permission and satisfaction it would definitely be allowed. However, in real life, this can only happen either with the permission of her guardian or through her direct permission. If she is also interested in marriage and there is a chance that she may also agree to his proposal if he does propose, she can grant him permission and is allowed to expose certain parts to him (or as per some contemporary jurists I was reading, only those parts that are reasonably uncovered in front of blood-relatives, such as feet, arms, hair, neck and as well as clothing that would show her shape and size a bit more than what she would wear outside). However, the girl is under no legal or moral obligation to do any of this - in fact as is obvious even from the words of the classical jurists, they said asking permission would defeat the purpose since most women would never allow such a thing to happen, be it out of embarrassment and shyness, or simply due to the risk factor (if he does not propose, that would be scarring for a woman).

Researching into this ruling was very fun and I would have loved to translate all the discussions and traditions and opinions on the subject so everyone could benefit and be able to put these rulings into a better context. However, I ain't getting paid for any of this and the world outside is a tough place to survive in :pushup2: . If there are any inconsistencies in my post or unclear statements, please point them out. I could have overlooked something due to the complexity of some of the discussions and things can be misunderstood through translation.


[1] Reference to sins such as masturbation, fornication and so on. As for why it is still allowed even if he knows it will result in lust, then that requires a separate explanation which is lengthy.

[2] I.e. there is a reasonable chance she may say yes to the proposal.

[3] Sayyid Sīstānī is mentioning this because most past jurists held the view that if a man or a woman had the mere intention of getting married, even if it was not to anyone specific and they were simply in the process of finding someone, then this look would be permissible. Sayyid Sīstānī is saying no, it has to be once a person has already gone through the process of identifying someone and they are intending on sending a proposal to them specifically, only then is this permission granted to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rkazmi33 said:

You would be surprised to know how many people get married to a person who is considered less attractive only because they want to have more power in marriage. I don't have a problem with showing hair but when people mention legs, it looks like men want to see their potential wives in a swimming suit and decide if they like what they see. That's an absurd idea and it can be very dangerous and easily misused by creeps and perverts. 

You don't need to see a women in a swimsuit to know what she looks like. 

At the same time, there are some families who want to marry their daughter to a certain guy but they know that she has some features that are not that attractive. So they call the guy a 'pervert' and shame him if he wants to see her, figuring that once her daughter is married, he will  'learn to live with' those unattractive features, and they will live happily ever after. I personally know brothers who this happened to. Usually, they don't 'learn' to live with it and those marriages are short and end in divorce. It is not because of the unattractive features that they end, it is because the guy at some point figures out he was tricked, and when men get angry after realizing they were tricked, it usually doesn't end well. If the family would have been honest from the beginning, and let the guy see her, so that he didn't feel he was tricked, he may very well have learned to live with those things, but they chose the dishonest way, which usually ends badly for the couple and families. 

So the reason why it is allowed is so that they guy doesn't feel he is tricked. So that he is fully aware of the positive and negative points about his potential bride and can make a decision based on this knowledge. Once he has the knowledge and makes the decision based on that, he, as they say in English, 'owns it' and then the marriage is much more likely to be sucessful. THe potential bride is also entitled to the same information regarding her husband. 

There are some perverts out there who take advantage of this, but I think this is a small percentage of the total and the family can protect against that by having the guy go thru some preliminary steps to show he is serious before he is allowed to see. All cultures have these steps, which are not part of Islam, but also many times they are also not haram or makrooh, i.e. the religion doesn't encourage or discourage them, but maintains a neutral stance. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you brother @Ibn al-Hussain for clarifying this whole thing and correcting our and my mistakes.

So according to Sayyed Al-Sistani, if I am simply committed to marry at a woman, I can look at her body parts - outlined in the fatwa - without her permission at all, technically?

As for the part about final step, I didn't mean that as part of the fatwa, I meant this would be a sensible application of the fatwa based on an experience of a family member. But your research has changed my mind, thanks bruv.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the point of hijab if any guy that comes along can check us out to see if we're fit for marriage? In this case, wouldn't Muslim women only need to cover up from non-muslim men? Because they're the only men that can't marry her. 

Also, I would be outraged if some man looked at me (whether from a picture or in real life) without hijab, without my permission. That's so violating. I'm sure many hijabi women would agree. And I'm sure many people will criticise what I'm saying, but ask yourself this first: would you ever allow a random man to look at pictures/or see your sisters and cousins without hijab, with quite a bit of their skin showing? 

To some this may seem like an overreaction, but imagine being covered up for decades on end, only to have random men being able to violate that privacy without your knowledge or permission. 

Edit- it was also mentioned that practically speaking, a man would not be able to see the woman without her permission. But, women take alot of pictures in female-only gatherings. I've heard many horror stories of women sharing pictures of younger women at the gatherings with their male relatives. The young woman's permission isn't really necessary in order for them to see her without hijab.

Edited by 2Timeless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

So what's the point of hijab if any guy that comes along can check us out to see if we're fit for marriage? In this case, wouldn't Muslim women only need to cover up from non-muslim men? Because they're the only men that can't marry her. 

Also, I would be outraged if some man looked at me (whether from a picture or in real life) without hijab, without my permission. That's so violating. I'm sure many hijabi women would agree. And I'm sure many people will criticise what I'm saying, but ask yourself this first: would you ever allow a random man to look at pictures/or see your sisters and cousins without hijab, with quite a bit of their skin showing? 

To some this may seem like an overreaction, but imagine being covered up for decades on end, only to have random men being able to violate that privacy without your knowledge or permission. 

Edit- it was also mentioned that practically speaking, a man would not be able to see the woman without her permission. But, women take alot of pictures in female-only gatherings. I've heard many horror stories of women sharing pictures of younger women at the gatherings with their male relatives. The young woman's permission isn't really necessary in order for them to see her without hijab.

And i used to think that those chicks who cover up and refuse to have their photos taken on all female parties were paranoid. After reading this thread I will never wear revealing and tight dresses in female gatherings again. I'll probably wear a hijab just in case as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2Timeless said:

So what's the point of hijab if any guy that comes along can check us out to see if we're fit for marriage? In this case, wouldn't Muslim women only need to cover up from non-muslim men? Because they're the only men that can't marry her. 

Also, I would be outraged if some man looked at me (whether from a picture or in real life) without hijab, without my permission. That's so violating. I'm sure many hijabi women would agree. And I'm sure many people will criticise what I'm saying, but ask yourself this first: would you ever allow a random man to look at pictures/or see your sisters and cousins without hijab, with quite a bit of their skin showing? 

To some this may seem like an overreaction, but imagine being covered up for decades on end, only to have random men being able to violate that privacy without your knowledge or permission. 

Edit- it was also mentioned that practically speaking, a man would not be able to see the woman without her permission. But, women take alot of pictures in female-only gatherings. I've heard many horror stories of women sharing pictures of younger women at the gatherings with their male relatives. The young woman's permission isn't really necessary in order for them to see her without hijab.

Not any guy. Please read my previous posts. 

The other problem, which is somewhat related to this is the nature of muslim communities, especially in the West. Real, functioning Muslim Communities where people communicate with each other and cooperate with each other across family, ethnic, and tribal lines, are supposed to be the natural check and balance to perverts exploiting this part of the religion for their own haram purposes. Unfortunately, these types of communities don't exist (at least that I have ever seen), and exist only in theory, so the consequence is that you have 'bad actors' that exploit the non functioning communities for their own purposes. 

So that is the current state of things. But just because of that, it doesn't mean that we start making haram what is halal. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

THe potential bride is also entitled to the same information regarding her husband. 

Not according to the ruling.

@Abu Hadi, yes there are perverts who will take advantage. BUT what's worse is that they're not really classed as "perverts". I personally know of women who take pictures and videos of the younger potentional brides, and then show their sons and nephews etc these photos. It's not a small minority. It happens alot. And alot of time, no one hears about it. 

I never completely said this ruling is derogatory or objectifying to women, because the hijab is a barrier, and physical attraction is important. So if certain women are comfortable with acting upon it that's fine. What I don't understand is why it needs to be done without the woman's approval or knowledge. 

3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Not any guy. Please read my previous posts

I did. Any guy who has the "intent" of marriage? 

 

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

×