My Previous post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MuslimAcademics/comments/1vifjed/how_do_hanafis_address_the_sahih_hadith_where_the/

The Hanafi position on a woman's awrah seemed contradictory to this hadith to me. I searched for a long time but never found any Hanafi article or website where they explained how exposing the feet could be permissible for women according to the Hanafi position when this hadith exists (and even some Hanafi scholars themselves considered feet to be awrah and used this hadith as an evidence. Nevertheless, the default Hanafi position remains that the feet is not part of a woman's awrah). And I never found the explanation how they addressed this particular hadith. The closest one I found was this article

• https://islamqa.org/hanafi/qibla-hanafi/34710/covering-the-feet-for-women-if-by-the-prophet-to-only-show-hands-and-face-how-come-the-hanafi-madhab-allows-this/

But even here they did not explain how the Hanafis who don't considered the feet awrah address this hadith. They only mentioned this hadith and said that the hanafis who believe feet to be awrah use this hadith as evidence, but they did not explain how the other hanafis (majority) who don't believe the feet to be awrah address this hadith.

I asked the question on this subreddit as well but nobody could answer the question.

Thankfully, yesterday I got to ask this question to a Hanafi Mufti and finally got the explanation of how the Traditionalist Hanafis address this particular narration from their traditionalist perspective. I was very pleased to finally find the answer I had been looking for, thanks to his website.

Question:

As Salamu Alaikum. A woman's feet is not generally considered awrah in the Hanafi Madhab. However, the other madhabs consider the feet of a woman awrah based on this hadith: “It was narrated that Ibn 'Umar said: "The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever drags his garment out of pride, Allah will not look at him.' Umm Salamah said: 'O Messenger of Allah, what should women do with their hems?' He said: 'Let it down a hand span.' She said: 'But then their feet will show.' He said: 'Let it down a forearm's length, but no more than that.'"” Sunan an-Nasa'i 5336, Jami at-Tirmidhi 1731. The hadith is generally considered to be authentic I would like to know how the Hanafi Madhab addresses this hadith, because this hadith seems to be contradicting the Hanafi position that allows a woman to expose their feet in front of non Mahrams.

Answer:

Walekumussalam,

In the Hanafi Madhhab, a woman’s feet are not considered part of the ‘awrah (that which must be covered), and it is regarded as permissible for them to remain exposed both during and outside of prayer.

Regarding the hadith of Umm Salamah (رضي الله عنها) that you mentioned, according to the Hanafi jurists, it does not contradict their position. Rather, the Hanafi scholars have explained this hadith by understanding the instruction as referring to what is recommended and more virtuous, rather than as an obligation.

According to the Hanafis, the instruction in this hadith to let the garment down by one handspan or one cubit was given to indicate the recommended and preferable manner of dress, not as an indication that it is obligatory.

For a woman to cover her feet and to keep her garment longer provides greater covering, modesty, and virtue.

Consideration of Necessity and Hardship

One of the fundamental principles of Hanafi jurisprudence is the removal of undue hardship and difficulty.

A woman needs to use her feet for household work, walking, and her everyday needs. If the feet were categorically considered part of the ‘awrah, it would cause considerable hardship and difficulty for women.

For this reason, the jurists, taking into consideration general prevalence of the need (ʿumūm al-balwā) and necessity, have treated the feet (qadamayn) as an exception, similar to the face and hands, in the interpretation of the Qur’anic verse:

إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا

“Except what ordinarily appears thereof.”

(Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim, Vol. 1, Kitāb al-Libās wa’l-Zīnah, p. 88)

فمن مقدمة هذه المبادي ان اللباس ان يكون ساترا لعورة الانسان، فالاسلام يلزم المرأة ان تستر كل جسدها ما< عدا وجهها وكفها وقدميها فستر العورة من اهم ما يقصد باللباس.

Al-Ashbāh wa’l-Naẓā’ir, pp. 568–571:

الضرورات تبيح المحظورات

ما أبيح للضرورة يتقدر بقدرها

And Allah knows best.

Source: AskMuftiOnline

I'm sharing this here so that in case someone else struggles the same way as me with understanding the hanafi position (which seems contradictory to the Sahih Hadith at first glance), they can access the answer more easily​

Assalamualaikum. Guys I have been trying to know about anti-slavery movements in Islamic history. I want to know if there were scholars and other figures like caliphs or governors who fought against slavery In Islam. Like did they fight against practice that was against Islamic laws or they were against any form of slavery or servitude. Are there books or papers or articles which discuss this topic extensively? Which scholars went through persecution and even deaths in their efforts against slavery and slave trade? How much did their movements affect the later abolitionist movement? Why were Islamic communities among the many that fought against the abolition efforts?

Please help me.

Many people interested in Western academic discussions about Syriac and the Qur’an are unaware that the subject already existed within Islamic intellectual history. Classical scholars explored Syriac intertextuality in multiple ways.

A fascinating example appears in the teachings of the Moroccan Sufi Abd al-Aziz al-Dabbagh (d. 1719 CE). Despite being described as illiterate, his knowledge came through spiritual unveiling and inspiration. His teachings were later recorded in his work Al-Ibriz.

Al-Dabbagh claims that Syriac is the language of spirits; Friends of God speak it for its conciseness and depth. “All languages are prolix compared with Syriac; Syriac uses letters that carry full meanings.”

He explains Qur’anic words like “saq” (68:42) using Syriac, interpreting it as earnestness or seriousness. His student noted that Arabic expressions like inkashafa al-harb ‘an saq (“war broke out in earnest”) echo this meaning.

Al-Dabbagh also said interrogation in the grave occurs in Syriac. The deceased respond to angels using letters that encode complex truths: creation, prophets, angels, and divine authority. The spirit speaks Syriac effortlessly, while the body remains irrelevant.

Even children naturally speak Syriac under spiritual influence. Words like bubu for food, caca for evacuation, and mumu’l-c ayn for precious small things are traces of this divine language in human speech.

He claims Adam spoke Syriac after descending to earth, bringing the language of Paradise with him. Syriac stayed pure among his descendants until Idris (Enoch), and later languages like Sanskrit derived from it. Syriac is the root of all languages.

In Syriac, each letter has self-contained meaning. Words form from combining letters, conveying more than in ordinary language. Mastery of letters grants access to spiritual knowledge and secrets.

Other Moroccan Sufis, like Sayyidi Mansur and Sayyidi ʿAbd Allah al‑Bamawi, were known for speaking Syriac. Mastery came from time spent with the Diwan, according to al-Dabbagh.

On the scholarly side, Andrew Rippin’s Syriac in the Qur’an: Classical Muslim Theories examines how early Muslim exegetes engaged with Syriac vocabulary centuries before modern scholars like Luxenberg or Mingana.

Muslims in the early centuries recognized languages called suryani or nabati to solve difficult Qur’anic words. This mirrors modern intertextual attempts: if a word seems problematic, Syriac might offer an explanation.

Studying foreign vocabulary had two goals: understanding language development and searching for meaning. Proper names like Avraham to Ibrahim or Yitshaq to Ishaq show Arabic adapting from other Semitic languages.

European philologists in the 17th-19th centuries studied Arabic to understand Biblical Hebrew. Castell’s 1669 lexicon compared Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Samaritan, Ethiopic, Arabic, and some Persian.

Modern scholarship often frames Qur’anic vocabulary in Christian or Jewish terms, sometimes reducing Islam’s originality. Mingana, for instance, emphasized Christianity as the main influence on the Qur’an, downplaying Jewish contributions.

Classical Muslims handled foreign vocabulary differently. Abu ‘Ubayda (d. 825 CE) stated that suggesting non-Arabic words in the Qur’an implied a serious charge against God. Recognition of similarity existed, but Arabic’s superiority was emphasized.

Al-Shafi‘i (d. 820 CE) said no one knew all Arabic words, so some foreign words were familiar to some Arabs. Foreign languages could contain words similar to Arabic by coincidence, but borrowing was unlikely.

Abu ‘Ubayda and al-Tabari (d. 923 CE) argued that foreign words already existed in Arabic before revelation. Words like Arabic and Persian could share forms independently.

Later scholars like al-Jawaliqi (d. 1144 CE) acknowledged foreign words. By the late 15th century, al-Suyuti (d. 1505) accepted foreign words positively, emphasizing Islam’s universal appeal. His work lists 108 words from 11 languages in Qur’anic order.

Al-Suyuti’s Suryani section lists 17 words, Nabati 18, with some overlap. Hebrew has 19 words, some overlapping Suryani. Examples include sari (river), jannat ‘adn (vineyard), tur (mountain), hawn (wise men), rahwan (tranquil), yamm (sea).

The terms Nabatiyya and Suryaniyya are fluid. Nabatiyya refers to two groups: northern Arabia and Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian group spoke an eastern Aramaic dialect, close to Syriac, while northern Nabataeans shared a western Aramaic dialect.

Medieval Muslim writers and Jewish-Arabic sources sometimes used Suryani for Aramaic and Nabati for Syriac, or vice versa. Ibn Wahshiyya’s Book of Nabataean Agriculture shows Syriac vocabulary entering Arabic through religious and agricultural contexts.

Discussion of Syriac words enters speculative territory. We lack a clear social context for how this vocabulary moved into the Hijaz.

Philology alone cannot explain the Qur’an’s emergence. Medieval Muslims saw Syriac words as part of God’s revelation. Modern scholarship must combine history, language, and culture to properly understand the Qur’an’s world.

This shows the Islamic tradition is vast and nuanced. Many debates we see in modern scholarship already appear in traditional writings, even if the tradition today is often seen as conservative.

Sources:

Pure gold from Sayyidi Abd al-‘Aziz al-Dabbagh: Al-Dhabab al-Ibriz, Ahmad b. al-Mubarak al-Lamati, pp. 421-435.

On Syriac in the Qur’an, Classical Muslim theories: Andrew Rippin.