The
Hadith

Here's a question,

how is it possible that the way women dress is seen as so important to their deen,

a crucial part of their worship?

The Qur'an doesn't say a lot about it,

so are there ahadith to help us understand?

What did the Messenger have to say about the matter?

Well, there is one hadith which is frequently quoted

in which the Messenger gives a woman instructions about her clothing.

It crops up all the time.

The hadith was narrated by Abu Dawood

from al-Waleed

from Sa'eed ibn Basheer

from Qataadah

from Khaalid ibn Durayk

from 'Aishah

that Asma' bint Abi Bakr

entered upon the Messenger of Allah

wearing a thin dress.

The Messenger turned away from her and said,

"O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of puberty,

nothing should be seen of her

except this and this"

and he pointed to his face and hands.

So this is the crucial hadith on which so much opinion is based?

I suppose we'd better look at it to see what we can learn.

Let's get clear what it says here.

The story is that Asma' bint Abi Bakr

came up to the Messenger wearing a see-through dress.

The Messenger showed modesty and looked away,

and told Asma' that at her age she shouldn't be showing anything

except her face and hands.

Except, well, no,

he didn't actually say anything about face and hands.

What he did was gesture,

the vaguest of guidance,

open to wide interpretation.

How does a gesture distinguish between face and head

or hair and neck,

or just the eyes

or mouth?

Does the gesture distinguish between fingers and hands?

Does it stop at the wrists or travel up past them

towards the elbow?

Is it perhaps even possible for a woman to wash for prayer in public?

So we look to the remaining ahadith

to see if the Messenger shows great concern about the way that the women around him dressed,

and the only hadith that anyone seems to know is this one,

and it's a hadith in which for the crucial part he doesn't even speak.

From the 23 years of his time bearing the Message,

no one can remember him saying anything more specific?

And this is supposed to be important?

He gestured,

and from that wave of a hand

such overweening moralities have been forged.

And over the years,

discussions have been known

to become somewhat heated concerning this matter,

so before we get involved

perhaps we should see

if there's anything more we can find out about this hadith.

What does Abu Dawood

who is narrating it

have to say about it?

Oh,

he says it has a broken chain,

as Khaalid ibn Durayk didn't even meet Aisha.

He says that the hadith is da'if,

weak,

and not fit to be used for evidence.

And that's just the first reason.

His second reason is that the chain includes ibn Basheer

who many scholars regard as weak,

and Ibn Hibbaan said of him:

'He has a bad memory and makes grievous mistakes'.

Then the chain includes Qataadah

who Abu Dawood says is mudallis,

someone who gives false impressions

concerning the narration of the hadith,

and that he didn't clearly state

that he heard the hadith from someone else.

But the chain also includes al-Waleed ibn Muslim,

who Abu Dawood also considers mudallis,

and he didn't clearly state that he heard the hadith from someone else either.

So these are the faults in the hadith

because of which the hadith was judged by Abu Dawood to be da’if,

weak and unfit for evidence

Surely the first one is enough isn't it?

Why are we still talking about this impossible hadith after that?

Right down the chain, Abu Dawood had problems,

but still he recorded the hadith he heard,

calling it da'if, rather than discarding it.

I'm sure that for Abu Dawood his intentions

were scrupulously self-effacing of of his judgement

and rigorously inclusive of what was before him,

recording every scrap of information

that might even possibly relate to the Messenger,

no matter how unlikely he thought it,

just in case it had any relevance.

But what we have here is a saying

that is not only vague but is one of a kind,

with no other reports from the Messenger's life to back it up,

and on top of that Abu Dawood says

he heard from someone who can't really be trusted

that they heard from someone who had a bad memory,

that he heard from someone else who can't really be trusted,

that he heard from someone who said he thought it came from Aisha,

but he wasn't actually there to hear it.

So here's a question

If this 'hadith' is so weak and unfit for use as evidence in an argument,

why are so many muslims still talking of it as if it should have any influence on our decisions?

Do we give such reverence to any information that stretches back to anywhere near to the time of the Messenger,

that we don't discard it even if we are more or less certain that it is deceit?

Perhaps it's kept at the top of the pile and so frequently referred to

because deceit can still serve a very useful purpose

for those who wish to use it as the basis of an argument?

And in that situation it's particularly useful when associated with ignorance,

which allows it to reign unfettered,

isn't it?

Which is why we search for real knowledge that relates to our Deen,

to keep us on the straight path.

So we learn all we can,

and look closely at what we are told to accept,

and always ask questions of the sources of knowledge.

And from God's Mercy we ask for help,

and God is the All-Knowing, the All-Aware.