The Distinguished Jurists Primer by Ibn Rushd

This chapter is divided into two sections. The first is about covering of the private parts (satr al^awrdjy while the second is about the kinds of dress permitted for prayer.

The jurists agreed that covering the private parts is an absolute obligation, but they disagreed on whether it is a condition for the validity of prayer? Similarly, they differed about the area of the body, for a woman and a man, that is delineated by the term awra.

The preferred opinion in Malik’s school is that it (covering of the this area) is one of the sunan of prayer. Abu Hanlfa and al-Shafi T said that c it is one of the prerequisites of the validity of prayer. The reason for disagreement over this stems from the conflict of traditions and the differences among the jurists in their understanding of the meaning of the words of the Exalted, “O Children of Adam! Look to [take] your adornment at every place of worship”,103 whether the prescription is to be construed as an obligation or a recommendation.

Those who interpreted it as an obligation said that the implied meaning is the covering of the <awra. They argued for this on the basis of the context of the revelation of the verse that a woman used to circumambulate the Ka<ba naked, so the verse was revealed and “the Messenger of Allah issued the command that from then on no polytheist be allowed to perform the pilgrimage, nor was anyone to make the circumambulation naked”. Those who interpreted it to convey a recommendation said that the adornment mentioned is the external form of the dress or other clothes that constitute adornment. They argued for this on the basis of what is laid down in a tradition that some men used to join the Prophet in prayer with their wrappers tied to their necks, as is done for children, and the women were, therefore, advised not to raise their heads (from the sujud) till the men straightened up into the sitting posture. They added that it was for this reason that there was no disagreement about whether a person who could not find anything to cover himself should pray, but there was a disagreement about one who could not purify himself whether he could pray.

The second issue is about the delineation of the <-awra in the case of men. Malik and al-Shafi T said that c the 'awra in his case extends from the navel to the knees. This was also Abu HanTfa’s opinion. A group of jurists maintained that the 'awra comprises the private parts alone (the male sex organ and the rear exit). The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of two traditions, and both are authentic. The first is the tradition of Jarhad that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The thighs are part of the ^awray\ The second is Anas’s tradition “that the Messenger of Allah (once) uncovered his thighs while he was sitting with his Companions”. It is recorded by al-Bukhari. Anas’s tradition has a stronger chain, while the Jarhad’s tradition is on the safer side. Some of the jurists have said that the awra comprises the buttocks, genitals, and the thighs.

The third issue relates to the limits of the 'awra in the case of a woman. Most of the jurists maintained that her entire body constitutes can?r^, except for the face and the hands. Abu HanTfa maintained that her feet are not a part of the <awra. Abu Bakr ibn <Abd al-Rahman and Ahmad said that her entire body is c awra.

The reason for their disagreement is based on the possible interpretations of the words of the Exalted, “And to display of their adornment only that which is apparent”, that is whether the exemption relates to defined parts or to those parts that she cannot (help but) display? Those who maintained that the intended exemption is only for those parts that she cannot help but display while moving, said that her entire body is <an>ra, even her back. They argued for this on the basis of the general implication of the words of the Exalted, “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them. That will make them recognizable and they will not be exposed to harm”.105 Those who held that the intended exemption is for what is customarily not covered, that is, the face and the hands, said that these are not included in the 'awra. They (further) argued for i this on the grounds that a woman does not cover her face during hajj.

"These are the words of the Exalted, 'O Children of Adam! Take your adornment at every place of worship,' along with the prohibition of certain forms of dress in prayer, that is, to use a garment as a support for the head, or to wrap oneself in a single piece of cloth (with the ends crossed) without there being anything covering the shoulders, or to wrap himself in a single garment without anything covering the private parts. All prescriptions laid down about them are as their aim the prevention of the means that lead to the uncovering of the private parts, and I do not know of anyone who said that prayer is not permitted in any of these forms of dress so long as it is uncovered. This, however, would be obligatory according to the principles of the Zahrites." They agreed that a man is permitted to pray in a single dress, because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) when he was asked: “Can a man pray in a single garment?” He said, “Do all of you have two garments?” They disagreed about the case of a man praying with his back and the front part above the navel uncovered. The majority uphold the permission of such prayer, as the back and the chest are not part of the ^awra for a man. A group of jurists deviated and said that his prayer is not permitted, because of the proscription from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) about the prayer of a man with nothing of his dress on his shoulders. They also relied upon the words of the Exalted, “O Children of Adam! Take your adornment at every place of worship”.107

The majority agreed that the dress permissible for a woman in prayer is a (long) shirt and a veil, because of w’hat is related from Umm Salama “that she asked the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), Tn what kind of dress should a woman pray?’ He said, Tn a veil and a long and loose-fitting garment that covers the upper part of her feet’”. Further, it is related from c A5isha from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “Allah does not accept the pubescent woman’s prayer, unless she wears a veil”. It is also related from cA5isha, Maymuna, and Umm Salama, and they used to issue verdicts accordingly. All jurists say that if she prays without a covering, she is to repeat her prayer (when she realizes her error) either within its prescribed time or later, except that Malik used to say that she is to repeat it only in its prescribed time.

The majority maintained that a slave-girl may pray with her head and fee uncovered, but al-Hasan al-Basri deemed it obligatory for her to use the veil while cAta5 deemed it recommended. The reason for disagreement lies in the question of whether a (legal) communication addressed to either category o persons (sex) includes those who are free as well as those in bondage, oi whether it includes only the free to the exclusion of slaves?

They disagreed about the case of a man praying while dressed in a silker garment. A group of jurists said that his prayer in it is valid (thougl prohibited), while another group said it is not. A third group recommendec repeating the prayer in its prescribed time (without the silk dress). The reasoi for disagreement is over the question of whether avoidance of a thin^ prohibited absolutely is a condition for the validity of prayer? Those whe maintained that it is a condition said that prayer in it is not permitted (no: valid), while those who maintained that he commits a sin because of his dress but his prayer is permissible said that it is not a condition for the validity o prayer unlike purification, which is a condition. This issue is of the sam< nature as that of prayer in usurped property, dispute over which is wideh known.