It has been established through various Islamic sources—including the Quran, Hadith, Ijma, Fiqh, and over 1300 years of Islamic history regarding slavery—that Islam permitted slave women to be publicly uncovered, including their breasts. For detailed evidence, please refer to this article:
Unfortunately, some modern Islamic apologists attempt to deny this fact through Deception and Lies.
This article is written to expose these deceptions and falsehoods for those who genuinely seek the truth.
Two traditions about Umar's slave women serving guests with naked breasts:
The example of Deceptions/Lies begins with these 2 traditions:
The 1st tradition is (link):
قال البيهقي رحمه الله في سننه (3222) : أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو الْقَاسِمِ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ عُبَيْدِ اللهِ الْحِرَفِيُّ بِبَغْدَادَ أنبأ عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ الْكُوفِيُّ ، ثنا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيِّ بْنِ عَفَّانَ ، ثنا زَيْدُ بْنُ الْحُبَابِ ، عَنْ حَمَّادِ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ قَالَ : حَدَّثَنِي ثُمَامَةُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ أَنَسٍ ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ قَالَ : " كُنَّ إِمَاءُ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ يَخْدِمْنَنَا كَاشِفَاتٍ عَنْ شُعُورِهِنَّ تَضْرِبُ ثُدِيّهُنَّ " .
Al-Bayhaqi said in his Sunan (3222): ... from Hammad ibn Salama, who said: Thumama ibn Abdullah ibn Anas narrated to me, from his grandfather Anas ibn Malik, who said: "The female slaves of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) used to serve us with their hair uncovered, and their breasts would shake/move."
Grade: Sahih (Albani)
And the 2nd tradition is (link):
وقد رواه يحيى بن سلام في تفسيره (1/ 441) : حَدَّثَنِي حَمَّادٌ وَنَصْرُ بْنُ طَرِيفٍ، عَنْ ثُمَامَةَ بْنِ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ قَالَ: " كُنَّ جَوَارِي عُمَرَ يَخْدُمْنَنَا كَاشِفَاتِ الرُّءُوسِ، تَضْطَرِبُ ثُدِيُّهُنَّ بَادِيَةً خِدَامُهُنَّ " .
Yahya ibn Salam narrated it in his Tafsir (1/441): Hammad and Nasr ibn Tarif narrated to me, from Thumama ibn Anas ibn Malik, from Anas ibn Malik, who said: "The slave girls of Umar used to serve us with their heads uncovered, their breasts shaking/moving, and their chests visible while they served."
However, Islamic apologists try to deny it by using different tactics.
1st Tactic: Wrong translation of hadiths by Islamic apologists
They change the translation of the traditions. They provide the following translation:
أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ قَالَ : " كُنَّ إِمَاءُ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ يَخْدِمْنَنَا كَاشِفَاتٍ عَنْ شُعُورِهِنَّ تَضْرِبُ ثُدِيّهُنَّ
Anas ibn Malik, who said: “The slave women of ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) used to serve us bare-headed, with their hair coming down to their breasts.
This translation is not correct. Word by word translation is (please see ChatGPT):
- كُنَّ - "They were"
- إِمَاءُ - "slave women" or "female slaves"
- عُمَرَ - "of Umar"
- رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ - "may Allah be pleased with him"
- يَخْدِمْنَنَا - "serving us"
- كَاشِفَاتٍ - "uncovered"
- عَنْ - "about" or "from"
- شُعُورِهِنَّ - "their hair"
- تَضْرِبُ - "shaking" or "moving"
- ثُدِيّهُنَّ - "their breasts"
The words تضرب ثدييهن: Literally, "beating their breasts." This is a common gesture of grief or lamentation in many cultures, particularly in the Middle East. However, in this specific context, it might also refer to the natural movement of the breasts while performing strenuous tasks.
So, the correct translation is: "The female slaves of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) used to serve us with their hair uncovered, and their breasts would shake/move."
Moreover, the 2nd tradition (" كُنَّ جَوَارِي عُمَرَ يَخْدُمْنَنَا كَاشِفَاتِ الرُّءُوسِ، تَضْطَرِبُ ثُدِيُّهُنَّ بَادِيَةً خِدَامُهُنَّ) is also a witness that it is about "moving/shaking" of breasts (and not about hairs touching the breasts).
Here is the word-by-word translation of the Arabic sentence into English:
- كُنَّ - "They were"
- جَوَارِي - "Slave girls"
- عُمَرَ - "of Umar"
- يَخْدُمْنَنَا - "serving us"
- كَاشِفَاتِ - "uncovered"
- الرُّءُوسِ - "their heads"
- تَضْطَرِبُ - "shaking/moving"
- ثُدِيُّهُنَّ - "their breasts"
- بَادِيَةً - "visible"
- خِدَامُهُنَّ - "while serving"
Putting it together: ""They were the slave girls of Umar serving us with their heads uncovered, their breasts shaking/moving, and their chests visible while serving."
2nd Tactic: Declaring the 2nd tradition to be WEAK
The second tradition is particularly explicit, and its meaning cannot be obscured simply by altering the translation. Consequently, Islamic apologists resorted to the second tactic: labeling this tradition as weak.
Islamqa.info, the largest Muslim fatwa website, employs a deceptive approach. Let’s examine how this prominent fatwa site addresses the issue. It states (link):
قال البيهقي رحمه الله في سننه (3222) :
أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو الْقَاسِمِ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ عُبَيْدِ اللهِ الْحِرَفِيُّ بِبَغْدَادَ أنبأ عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ الْكُوفِيُّ ، ثنا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيِّ بْنِ عَفَّانَ ، ثنا زَيْدُ بْنُ الْحُبَابِ ، عَنْ حَمَّادِ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ قَالَ : حَدَّثَنِي ثُمَامَةُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ أَنَسٍ ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ قَالَ : " كُنَّ إِمَاءُ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ يَخْدِمْنَنَا كَاشِفَاتٍ عَنْ شُعُورِهِنَّ تَضْرِبُ ثُدِيّهُنَّ " .
وهذا إسناد حسن ، قال الألباني رحمه الله :
" إسناده جيد رجاله كلهم ثقات غير شيخ البيهقى أبى القاسم عبد الرحمن بن عبيد الله الحربى وهو صدوق كما قال الخطيب " انتهى من "إرواء الغليل" (6/ 204) .
وقد رواه يحيى بن سلام في تفسيره (1/ 441) : حَدَّثَنِي حَمَّادٌ وَنَصْرُ بْنُ طَرِيفٍ، عَنْ ثُمَامَةَ بْنِ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ قَالَ: " كُنَّ جَوَارِي عُمَرَ يَخْدُمْنَنَا كَاشِفَاتِ الرُّءُوسِ، تَضْطَرِبُ ثُدِيُّهُنَّ بَادِيَةً خِدَامُهُنَّ " .
فثبت بذلك الأثر ، إلا أن المحفوظ رواية البيهقي بلفظ ( تضرب ثديهن ) أما لفظ ( تضطرب ) فهو في رواية ابن سلام المتقدمة ، وفي إسنادها نصر بن طريف وهو متهم بالكذب ، قال يحيى : من المعروفين بوضع الحديث ، وقال الفلاس : وممن أجمع عليه من أهل الكذب أنه لا يروي عنهم قوم منهم أبو جزي القصاب نصر بن طريف .
انظر "لسان الميزان" (6/153) .Translation (provided by Isalamqa.info itself):
Al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his Sunan (3222):
Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn ‘Ubaydillah al-Hirafi told us in Baghdad: ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn az-Zubayr al-Kufi told us: al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Affan told us: Zayd ibn al-Hubab told us, from Hammad ibn Salamah حَمَّادِ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ, who said: Thumamah ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Anas told me, from his grandfather Anas ibn Malik, who said: “The slave women of ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) used to serve us bare-headed, with their hair coming down to their breasts.”
This is a hasan isnad. Al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Its isnad is jayyid (good) and its narrators are all trustworthy (thiqah) except the shaykh of al-Bayhaqi, Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn ‘Ubaydillah al-Harbi, who is sincere (saduq), as al-Khatib said."(Irwa’ al-Ghalil 6/204).
It was narrated by Yahya ibn Salam in his Tafsir (1/441): Hammad (ibn Salamah) and Nasr ibn Tarif (both) told me, from Thumamah ibn Anas ibn Malik, from Anas ibn Malik, who said: “The slave women of ‘Umar used to serve us bare-headed, with their breasts jiggling and their ankles showing.”
Thus the report is proven, but what is known and circulated among scholars is the version narrated by al-Bayhaqi, “with their hair coming down to their breasts.” As for the version which says “with their breasts jiggling,” this comes from the report of Ibn Salam which is referred to above. Its isnad includes Nasr ibn Tarif, who was accused of lying. Yahya said: He is one of those who are known for fabricating hadiths. Al-Fallas said: He is one of those regarding whom there is consensus that they are liars and no report is to be narrated from them; one of them is Abu Jizzi al-Qassab Nasr ibn Tarif.
See: Lisan al-Mizan (6/153).
Our Critique:
The answer at islamqa.info is a CLEAR DECEPTION, while:
- Both traditions have exactly the same chain of narrations i.e. Hammad ibn Salamah حَمَّادِ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ - Thumamah ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Anas - from his grandfather Anas ibn Malik
- However, the 2nd tradition has both Hamad ibn Salamah حَمَّادِ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ and Nasr ibn Tarif نَصْرُ بْنُ طَرِيفٍ. But Islamqa.info has declared the 2nd person نَصْرُ بْنُ طَرِيفٍ to be weak, and then declared the whole 2nd tradition to be weak. This is a strange thing, and only equal to a DECEPTION, while the 2nd chain through Hamad ibn Salamah حَمَّادِ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ still makes the 2nd tradition to be as authentic as the first traditions is, as both of them have the same chain.
It was a painful experience. At the time, when I was a Muslim, Islamqa.info was highly respected and considered one of the most authoritative fatwa websites. To discover that such an esteemed source was employing deception to misrepresent the truth was deeply painful. It felt like a betrayal of the trust I had placed in it and shattered my confidence.
3rd Tactic: Making False Statements with full Confidence, without providing a SINGLE Quranic Verse or a Single Hadith
The fact that slave women were not required to wear the Hijab and their breasts were left uncovered is well-supported by numerous Islamic hadiths, the consensus (Ijma) of the Ummah, and the interpretations of all early Fiqh scholars.
The tactic of Islamic apologists is to deny these traditions, consensus, and historical accounts, , but they themselves fail to bring even a single verse or hadith that claims the opposite (i.e., that slave women must cover their breasts).
Islamqa.info, for instance, could not bring any Quranic Verse or Hadith, but they only reference the opinion of the Zahiri scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, who lived in the 7th century. Yet, Ibn Taymiyyah’s statements were made without any concrete evidence:
- Ibn Taymiyyah did not provide a single verse from the Quran requiring slave women to cover their breasts.
- He did not present a single hadith supporting this requirement.
- He failed to offer any proof from the consensus of the early scholars (Ijma) on this issue.
In summary, Ibn Taymiyyah offered no proof for his claims, and all established evidence is contrary to his assertions.
4th Tactic: Making a false statement that slave women didn't wear the Hijab only when they had to work, and slave girls were unattractive
Islamqa.info made the (false) claim that:
- Slave girls were not wearing the Hijab only when they were working, otherwise they were wearing the Hijab
- and the Hijab was not necessary in the case of slave girls, while people didn't find them attractive.
It wrote (link):
Islamic teachings differentiate between free women and slave women. The free woman is to observe complete hijab, whereas slave women do not have to wear hijab, and it is permissible for a slave woman to uncover her head, hands and face, because of the need to move a great deal as they do their work, and imposing hijab on them would cause them great hardship, in addition to the fact that people do not usually find them attractive.
Our Response:
Both of these excuses are unconvincing for several reasons:
Firstly, if the issue were merely about work, the Quran and Hadith would have explicitly stated that slave women could remove their Hijab while working and then put it back on afterward. However, this is not the case. For example, the slave girl was only going out of the house with Hijab (and not working) when Umar saw her, and then he started beating her with a stick and told her not to resemble free Muslim women through wearing the Hijab.
Saudi grand hadith master Sheikh Albani recorded this authentic tradition (link):
أخرجه ابن أبي شيبة في " المصنف " ( 2 / 82 / 1 ) : حدثنا وكيع قال : حدثنا شعبة عن قتادة عن أنس قال : " رأى عمر أمة لنا مقنعة فضربها وقال : لا تشبهين بالحرائر " . قلت : وهذا إسناد صحيح
Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded in his book al-Munsaf that Umar Ibn Khattab saw a slave girl who took a garment/sheet as a Hijab and covered her body. Upon that Umar hit her and told her that she should not try to resemble the free Muslim women (by taking Jilbab/Muqna).”
The chain of narration of this Hadith is “authentic/Sahih”
This same tradition is also narrated by Ibn Qalabah (link).
Abdur Razzak (d 211 Hijri year) recorded this narration (link):
عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن أيوب عن نافع أن عمر رأى جارية خرجت من بيت حفصة متزينة عليها جلباب أو من بيت بعض أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فدخل عمر البيت فقال من هذه الجارية فقالوا أمة لنا – أو قالوا أمة لآل فلان – فتغيظ عليهم وقال أتخرجون إماءكم بزينتها تفتنون الناس
Umar once saw a young girl leaving the house of Hafsa (his daughter), adorned with a jilbab — or, from one of the houses of the Prophet’s wives. Umar entered the house and said, “Who is this girl?” They said, “A slave of ours” — or, a slave of someone’s family. He became enraged at them and said, “Your slave girls left with their adornment, and created discord (by taking Jilbab) amongst the people (while they were unable to distinguish her from the free Muslim women).”
And Saudi grand hadith master Sheikh Albani recorded this tradition (link 1 and link 2):
حدثنا على بن مسهر عن المختار بن فلفل عن أنس بن مالك قال: " دخلت على عمر بن الخطاب أمة قد كان يعرفها لبعض المهاجرين أو الأنصار , وعليها جلباب متقنعة به , فسألها: عتقت؟ قالت: لا: قال: فما بال الجلباب؟! ضعيه عن رأسك , إنما الجلباب على الحرائر من نساء المؤمنين , فتلكأت , فقام إليها بالدرة , فضرب بها رأسها حتى ألقته عن رأسها ".
قلت: وهذا سند صحيح على شرط مسلم.
Anas bin Malik said: "I entered upon Umar bin Al-Khattab with a female slave that he knew, either from the Muhajireen or the Ansar, and she was wearing a well-adorned cloak (i.e. Jilbab, which was used to cover her breasts and body with it). He asked her, 'Have you been set free?' She replied, 'No.' He then said, 'What is with the cloak?' 'Take it off your head. The cloak is only for the free women among the believers.' She hesitated, so he got up and took it off her head forcefully, hitting her with a whip until he removed it from her head."
I (Sheikh Albani) say, "And this chain is authentic according to the conditions of Muslim.
Imam Ibn Abi Shayba also recorded this tradition (link):
حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ ، عَنْ خَالِدٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي قِلَابَةَ ، قَالَ : كَانَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ لَا يَدْعُ فِي خِلَافَتِهِ أَمَةً تَقَنَّعُ ، قَالَ : قَالَ عُمَرُ : إِنَّمَا الْقِنَاعُ لِلْحَرَائِرِ لَكَيْلَا لَا يُؤْذَيْنَ
Narrated to us Hushaym, from Khalid, from Abu Qilaba, who said: "Umar ibn al-Khattab, during his caliphate, did not leave any slave girl who could cover herself. He said: 'Covering oneself is only for free (Muslim/Believing) women, so they may not be harmed (i.e. people can differentiate them with slave women and don't harm the free Muslim women).'"
This clearly indicates that the prohibition of the Hijab for slave women is not related to their work but is tied to their social STATUS. Wearing the Hijab was a privilege and right reserved for free Muslim women only.
Secondly, the argument that young slave girls were considered unattractive and therefore did not need to wear the Hijab is fundamentally flawed. No rational person would accept the notion that slave girls were unattractive, and it was the reason they were prohibited to wear the Hijab.
5th Tactic: Claiming That It Was not Sharia, but Merely a Custom to Keep Slave Girls Without Hijab, and That the Quran and Sunnah Never Distinguished Between Free and Slave Women Regarding Hijab
Ibn Taymiyyah made another claim that it was only a CUSTOM of believers that slave women didn't wear the Hijab:
There is nothing in the Qur’an or Sunnah to suggest that it is permissible to look at slave women, or that they should not observe hijab and may show their adornments. But the Qur’an does not give the same instructions to them as to free women. The Sunnah distinguishes between them and free women in practical terms, but there is no statement in the Sunnah to differentiate between them in words. Rather the custom of the believers was that free women would observe hijab, and slave women would not.
These are again claims by Ibn Taymiyyah without any evidence (actually, all evidence is against these claims).
Firstly, it was not just a CUSTOM but a matter of Islamic Sharia that slave women were prohibited from wearing the Hijab. Numerous hadiths, particularly those involving Umar ibn Khattab, provide clear evidence of this practice.
And if it was only a CUSTOM, why then Allah not revealed a single clear Quranic Verse to end this custom and tell Muslims to make their slave girls to wear the Hijab?
Moreover, Ibn Taymiyyah's assertion that the Quran and Sunnah do not DISTINGUISH between free Muslim women and slave women in terms of Hijab is misleading. This is a falsehood.
In reality, the Quran and Sunnah do make a clear distinction between free Muslim women and slave women regarding the Hijab.
For example, Quran 33:59 states:
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَٰجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَآءِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَٰبِيبِهِنَّ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰٓ أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ ۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا
O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, so that they may be recognized/DISTINGUISHED (as free Women) and not molested.
This verse explicitly differentiates between free women and others, highlighting the specific requirement for free women to wear the Hijab.
Like Islamqa.info, Ibn Taymiyyah was also highly revered as a truthful religious personality. It was painful to discover his dishonesty and deceptions.
Hassan Radwan