Note: The following transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Alhamdulillah rabbil alameen, wassalatu wassalamu ala rasoolillahi sallallahu alayhi wasallam, wa ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma'in, assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
Ustad Abdurrahman Hassan: Wa alaykum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, jazakallahu khayran.
How are you doing today?
Alhamdulillah, Barakallahu feekum once again for joining me on the HotSea podcast, where today, as always, we are going to be tackling what is seen to be a very controversial issue in the religion of Islam.
And we're going to be talking about the dress code of a Muslim woman, and really, the majority of our conversation is going to be built around the issue of the face veil, otherwise known as the niqab.
This has been a discussion that obviously the Muslims in Europe are well accustomed to, where there have been a number of issues raised, particularly from France, about how this is oppressive to the Muslim woman, about how this should be abolished, and how this shouldn't be allowed in the 21st century.
And more recently than that, as recent as last week, within the Islamic world, the Grand Mufti of Chechnya even came out with a statement saying that the niqab is a Wahhabi Saudi Arabian cultural practice. And that's why we thought it would be important to talk about this issue right now. And I really wanted to start on that kind of premise, really.
Before we talk about the face veil, let's talk about the hijab itself, the kind of the head covering. Is the hijab an act of worship? And I suppose before that, what is it? What is the hijab? What is the definition of the hijab? And is it an act of worship? Or is it, as the Mufti of Chechnya said, a cultural practice? First of all, Jazakallah Khayran for having me. May Allah bless you and reward you abundantly.
In regards to the question you asked, the word al-hijab in the Arabic language, it's a situ, it's to conceal, it's to hide, it's to cover. And in the Sharia, it means, It is what the woman conceals herself with, the Muslim woman, She conceals herself to prevent the foreign men. And again, al-ajanib here we're referring to men who are not her brothers, who are not her father.
Those men are maharim, her sons, her maternal, paternal uncles. Those are maharim. Those are not the ones we're referring to.
And al-rijal al-ajanib here means, ajanib are foreign men. Like her cousin, for example, is an ajnibi, he's a foreign man from her. Even though some cultures believe, he's only my cousin, we grew up together and everything.
Still, according to the religion, this is a foreign man, he's an ajnibi. So, to cover herself, Muslim woman, to cover herself from men seeing her body. Those men are, of course, not her maharim.
That's what it means in the Sharia. Hijab is a ibadah, because Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, He commanded hijab in the Quran, and also prohibited the opposite of hijab, which is known as tabaruj. Tabaruj means the woman coming out in the open without wearing the hijab.
So, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, He commanded hijab and prohibited its opposite. That really drives a point home, which is that hijab is a ibadah from the ibadat. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says, وَإِذَا سَأَلْتُمُهُنَّ مَتَاعًا فَاسْأَلُهُنَّ مِنْ وَرَائِ حِجَابٍ ذَلِكُمْ أَطْحَرُ لِقُلُوبِكُمْ وَقُلُوبِهِنَّ Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, He says, if you address them, if you speak to them, Allah says, فَاسْأَلُهُنَّ مِنْ وَرَائِ حِجَابٍ Make sure that you ask them from behind a veil.
So the word that's used here is hijab, something to conceal them. And then Allah gives the reason for that. He says ذلكم أطهر لقلوبكم This is to purify your hearts وقلوبهن وقلوبهن and their hearts That ayah is now, the women are being commanded فَاسْأَلُهُنَّ مِنْ وَرَائِ حِجَابٍ So that's an amr.
And if Allah commands us something, we are forced to obey Him subhanahu wa ta'ala. And the opposite is prohibited, which is tabaruj. Allah says in the Qur'an وَقَرْنَا فِي بُيُوتِ كُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجْنَا تَبَرُّجَ الْجَاهِلِيَةِ الْأُولَى وَأَقِمْنَا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتِيْنَا الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِعْنَا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ Allah says to the women, you know, remain at home وَقَرْنَا فِي بُيُوتِ كُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجْنَا تَبَرُّجَ الْجَاهِلِيَةِ الْأُولَى And if it happens that you do have to go out, don't do tabaruj.
And you don't come out with no hijab on. And then Allah mentions the concept of hijab in the context of what? وَأَقِمْنَا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتِيْنَا الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِعْنَا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ He mentions it in the context of iqamat al-salah and ita' al-zakah. And tarq al-tabaruj, all of them are mentioned together.
And we all know that salah is ibadah. 100% We all know that zakah is also ibadah. And hijab was mentioned with those acts of worship.
So that does show us that the hijab is an act of worship based on those two verses. And we are as Muslims when we're commanded to do something, male or female. وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيْرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ If Allah and His Messenger command a matter, no Muslim man or no Muslim woman has no choice.
And no man has a choice or any woman when Allah and His Messenger pass a ruling in a matter. We have to submit. بَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِي مَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنفُسٍ حَرَجًا مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا So if Allah is commanding the women to wear the hijab and to cover up, then what is required from the believing women is إِنَّمَا كَانَ قَوْلَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِذَا دُعُوا إِلَىٰ اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ لِيَحْكُمَ بَيْنَهُمْ أَن يَقُولُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا I hear and I obey.
That's what's upon the believing woman who believes in Allah on Yawm al-Qiyamah, who believes that she's going to be accounted for. This is what's required from her to do straight away. There are obviously some countries in the world where it is seen as a cultural practice.
If a woman is wearing a hijab out of a cultural practice, not for the sake of Allah, not as an act of worship, will she be rewarded for that action? The act itself is an ibadah and the person has to wear it as an act of ibadah in order to be rewarded. Every action that we do is in accordance to our intention. Allah says, وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مُقْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ You are not commanded except to do things for Allah's sake alone.
Also the Prophet ﷺ said in Hadith Sahihain, من حديث عمر بن الخطاب إن من أعماله بالنيات وإنما لكل من إيمانه فمن كان تجرته إلى الله ورسوله فهجرته إلى الله ورسوله ومن كان تجرته لجنية يصيبها ومرأة ينكحها فهجرته إلى ما هجر إليه Every action is based on the intention and everybody is going to be rewarded in accordance to their intention. So if a person does an act of ibadah without the intention of it being an ibadah, they don't get the reward for it. Okay, so you brought obviously evidences to show that the hijab has been commanded and the opposite of the hijab has been prohibited which clearly indicates that it's an act of worship.
However, we also know with Allah's rules and his regulations that things aren't just legislated without a reason behind it. So what is the wisdom for the legislation of the hijab? The scholars, they mentioned a few which has been taken from the Qur'an and it's taken from the prophetic sunnah. It's taken from the prophetic tradition and it's things that the Prophet ﷺ said and these are found in the Qur'an.
Allah mentions in the Qur'an that it's a purification of the hearts of the women and the hearts of the men. So the first hikmah or the wisdom is that if you speak to them and you're talking to the women, ask them from behind a veil. Then Allah mentions the ilah, the hikmah that is why he sanctioned this ruling.
He says that it purifies your heart and it also purifies the hearts of the men. So this ayah is informing us, telling us that the hikmah of why hijab was sanctioned, the objective of why hijab was sanctioned is The second reason is that the hijab is a sign of modesty and shyness. And shyness is part of iman.
I don't think anybody would disagree with that. Bukhari narrated in his sahih that the Messenger ﷺ said that shyness is from iman and wearing a hijab, covering yourself up or covering your face and your body parts is a sign of shyness. And Allah mentioned in Surah al-Qasas when he was talking about the daughter of the man of Median, a righteous man from Median.
Some people say this man was Shu'aib but that's not right. It's a righteous man from Median. When Allah was talking about this man's daughter, she wanted to talk to Nabi Allah Musa.
She wanted to talk to Musa. And Allah mentioned about her, He said This woman, she came over to Nabi Allah Musa walking with shyness. That's what it says.
She was walking and she was shy. Now, what does it mean? How do you walk shyness? Umar ibn al-Khattab explained this. Ibn al-Kathir brings it in on the ayah.
He said He said she came walking She was walking with shyness. And she was covering with her cloth, she was covering her face. She was what? She was covering her face.
She wasn't a woman who was A woman who was dominating when she was talking and speaking loud and everything. And she's not a A woman who keeps leaving all the time. And a woman who keeps entering.
Some women are always out and about, in out, in out. The house for them is only a place to sleep. Whereas the house should be the place where the woman stays the majority of her time.
She's protected from the society, the evil people around. So, this is one of the wisdoms why our mother or the righteous woman of this man, Median, was walking in that way. Also, it was Sorry, just before you move on, you said that the house is where the woman, that should be her asr, that should be where she spends the majority of her time.
Is that your opinion or is there a deliverance from the Quran? Allah says to the women, remain in your houses. Don't go out. The woman shouldn't go out all the time.
When there's a hajjah, she should go. And by the way, I said hajjah, not darurah. So, she can leave when there is a hajjah, when there is a need.
It doesn't have to be necessity for her to leave. She can leave. We're not saying she can't leave.
The majority of the time, she's at home. She leaves when there is a need. All the time you call the house, the man is picking up the phone or the children are picking up the phone and mom's not home.
This, to be honest, really speaking from a shari'ah perspective, it's not in line with what the shari'ah says. She said about Fatima binti Rasulullah, that Fatima, this is the shyness of the righteous women. This is the shyness of the people who've tasted the sweetness of iman.
This is the daughter of the Prophet, peace be upon him, his own daughter. She said to Asma binti Umaysin, she said, I feel distasteful, that which is done to the women. I'm very distasteful towards what is done to the women.
The shroud is placed on the woman, her body, and it still shows her body parts. This is a dead body. This is a person who's passed away, who died.
Fatima, she's saying that this woman, when she dies and she passed away, they placed a shroud on her. You can still see her body parts, her curves and her blossoms and all of that. She's saying, this doesn't, I don't like it.
It mentions whether her bones are big or not. So she didn't like that. This shows you, subhanAllah, it's the concept of haya, shyness.
It was a sign of shyness. There was a woman from the stories of the Arabs that were mentioned, that her khimar fell off from her face. And she took her hand straight away to cover her face with her other hand.
And then the poet, he said regarding her, nasif, it means the khimar. Her khimar fell from her face and she didn't intend for it to fall. But what she did was, so she took her other hand to cover her face.
And I remember, subhanAllah, one of the things that took me back. When I went back to my country, Somalia, and I saw the Somali girls that go to school. By the way, the schools, some schools are, but the school I was going to was segregated.
Boys and girls were segregated. But if it ever happened that the boys and the girls had to leave the gates, and you saw a girl leaving, you would always see the following. It was something very common, subhanAllah, it took me back.
That even though they're not wearing niqab, but because they're wearing big jilbabs, they take the side of the jilbab, they've got their hand inside, and they cover it over their faces for no one to see them. So it's, subhanAllah, it's a noble characteristic, subhanAllah. I ask Allah from the bottom of my heart that increases this in our Muslim women.
The third reason why the niqab was, or the hijab in general, is sanctioned is because it protects the women. The hijab is a thing that protects the women from the harms of the transgressors and the criminals. We know we're not living in a perfect world where there's righteous people, right, left, center.
There are criminals here. We're talking about thugs, we're talking about rapists, we're talking about evil people. Our religion wants to protect our women.
It doesn't want our women to fall into these problems. Allah says, Allah says, O Prophet of Allah, say to your wives and your daughters and the believing women, that they wear, they cover themselves with their jilbab. This is a means for her not to be recognized and not harmed.
And verily, Allah is one who is very forgiving and merciful to his creation. So the ayah says, and the word is clear-cut evidence that the word is a means that protects the women from the people who have desires, who want to harm her. Last but not least, the fourth one is that it protects the men and the women, both of them, from falling into what? It protects the man and the woman from falling into zina.
So this woman, she meets a man, in order for him to have any sexual intercourse with her, first of all, the clothes have to go off. No one has sexual intercourse with clothes on. He said in the ayah, Do not come close to zina, for verily, it is an evil thing.
It's a fahisha, it's a crime, and it's an evil thing. The ayah says, don't come close to zina. The ayah did not prohibit from, it didn't prohibit us from merely doing the action of zina.
It didn't. It said, don't get close to zina. So this is, it's a prohibition of getting closer to zina, not just the action of zina itself.
And this is powerful, it's greater. Why? Because anything that would lead to zina is closed, which is what the scholars call, all those evil means, they have to be blocked off. So we're not allowed to look at a woman, have to lower our gaze, because it's protecting us from zina.
We're not allowed to, a woman is not allowed to wear hijab, that shows her, she's not allowed to wear clothing, that shows her body parts, or she's not allowed, all of that is going to lead to zina. And subhanAllah, just as a final point I want to conclude with, that women are objectified when they wear, you know, less clothes. I mean, the less clothes that she wears, the less, the more revealing she is, the more skin that's displayed, the more the woman is objectified.
And she's seen as less intelligent, and she's also belittled and degraded. And this is, subhanAllah, something as Allah ta'ala said in the Qur'an, وَشَهِدَ شَاهِدٌ مِّنْ أَهْلِهَا They themselves, the non-Muslims, have testified to this. Surveys that they've done, researches that they've done.
They've looked at this matter, by the way, not just, they've looked at it from a neurological perspective, psychological perspective. Why are psychologically men like this? If a woman comes with a miniskirt, they objectify her straight away. They don't just objectify her, they dehumanize her.
They take that value of her being a human being from this woman. I was taken back, various studies, by the way, I've come across ample studies that point towards how external cues that the women, such as her appearance, for example, and the attire that she wears could play a key role that encourages objectification, dehumanization, and the denial of any intellectual grounds. I mean, this is researches that the non-Muslims, in April, in April 1999, a survey by the Janet News Service, they revealed that almost one in three people in the US believe that the behavior or dress of a woman plays a role of her being a rape victim, and it can contribute to the act of rapist.
Just because of what? At least, this is a big number. Every one, every three people, one person is saying, I believe that the reason why women get raped is because of the clothes they're wearing. By the way, I have to put this out.
No woman deserves to be raped, even if she takes off all of her clothes, and she's naked, and she's wearing nothing. No one deserves to be harmed. Just because a woman dressed in a certain way does not in any way, shape, or form, allow a rapist to rape her, I'm not justifying rapists, and they do deserve a very serious dealing, rapists.
They should be dealt with seriously, and it's not something I would love for my sister, or my mother, or however way they act. With that being said, though, we need to take precautions. This is what the point is.
Allah says in the Quran, take your precautions. In 1978, by the way, I like that I'm going backwards. I'm not talking about now.
Yeah, that's true. That's true. You said 1999 first, not 1978.
These are like, subhanAllah, surveys and, you know, researches that were done earlier. I want to show when people were more modest, people were more honest, people were more, the social media and what it's done, subhanAllah, it's become crazier. In 1978, sexual assault cases, there was a sexual assault case that took place in Montana Supreme Court.
They noted out that the defendant testified that the sexual conduct, the rapist, he testified that the reason why he committed this was encouraged by the dress and behavior of the woman he raped. He goes, I wasn't going to do it. News reports provided accounts of instances in which the victim's clothing were introduced into evidence in a courtroom.
They took their clothing just to check what was the reason why the rapist did it. The non-Muslims are even saying this. So if a sister believes that the more skin she shows, if she believes the more she gets rid of her hijab, that she's going to be respected, increased skin display was not self-rated as modest.
They did a survey, they said increased skin display was not self-rated as modest. No one from all of the participants that participated in the survey, a few said it, the number was so low. Women expecting high levels of investment, act of chast, emphasize of their fidelity, whereas women who do not expect investment, if a woman wanted to be respected for her chast, her brain and her intellect, she wanted to be respected for how she carries herself, she covered more.
This is the research they did. Women who did not expect to be emotionally invested with her, intellectually invested with her, she flaunted the sexuality to extract the pre-reproduction investment from as many males as possible. In other words, she's playing into men's desires.
She wants to be respected for her looks. This is SubhanAllah, you as a person, telling men to objectify you, dehumanize you, and then you get that response from men. There's no ihtiram for you.
I remember SubhanAllah very strongly, I was in college, and a girl got too close to a boy, and what he did to her was he touched her in an inappropriate way. He touched her in an inappropriate way. And SubhanAllah, the girl, of course he has no rights to, he has no rights to, this is wrong, it's unequivocally wrong.
But what I sensed from it was the fact that she acted in that way gave him the impression that she would not mind if he did this. Do you understand my point? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's as though she invited this.
So when she got angry and she said, oh, why did you touch me in an inappropriate way? Why did you do that? When she responded in that way, and she said what she said, his jaw dropped. Like, where did that come from? I thought we could do what we want to each other. Right, right, right, right.
Again, I'm not saying that what he did was right, and I'm not justifying that, to keep putting that there. But I'm just trying to say to you, human psychology is like that. If you show more skin, if this is the way the world, you take a piece of meat and you place it on top of a tree, lions see it.
They're not going to let it go. They're going to eat that piece of meat. You leave it in the desert, you leave it in the jungle.
And again, I'm not saying it's a piece of meat. Again, I'm not saying, I'm not comparing. I am not comparing a piece of meat to a woman.
But what I'm saying is, what I'm comparing is being lackadaisical in a situation, exposing yourself out like that, same way as exposing your, you don't leave your phone outside and expect no one to steal it. I'm just comparing, just being lackadaisical, not being considerate, not knowing that your actions can lead to a reaction. Can lead to a reaction.
Yeah, I understand. Okay, I think that's an important introduction that you've laid out. Before we go on to the discussion of the niqab, the face veil, I just want to close out the discussion of the hijab.
I think a lot of people actually believe it, because the word hijab is used commonly, as just referring to a kind of a headscarf and nothing else. And that is how it's used in many Muslim communities. And I even said it in the introduction as a headscarf, which was wrong of me.
So I've actually got the conditions of the hijab here. There's nine conditions, which I'd like to read out. And I think these are conditions which have been derived from the Quran and Sunnah, which the scholars agree upon.
So the first one is that the hijab must cover her entire body. So there's two things that I'll take from this. The first thing is that the thought that it's just a headscarf alone, obviously gets wiped out by this condition.
It has to cover her entire body. The second thing I would say is that there is a genuine discussion about whether that entire body includes the face and the hands, which is going to form the rest of this podcast, the discussion that's taken place between the scholars. The second condition, it should be thick enough to conceal what is underneath it.
It should be loose fitting and not tight. It should not be so attractive as to call men's attention to it. It should not be perfumed.
It should not be a dress of fame, or it should not be extravagant in any way. It should not resemble the dress of men. It should not resemble the dress of disbelieving women.
And it should not be adorned with any crosses or pictures of animate beings. So those are conditions that I'm sure you say that are kind of like agreed upon by both sides, whether you believe the face was a bigotry or not. Aside from the first condition about the entire body, whether it includes the face or not, I think that's an important thing to lay out for the Muslim sisters who might be watching this, that the hijab is not just a headscarf and then you wear jeans and t-shirt and you think that you're wearing a hijab.
It's much more comprehensive than that. Okay, so let's move on to the main discussion then. So now we're going to be moving on to talk about whether the niqab is obligatory or not.
And just before we start the discussion, just to reiterate the point really, that the difference of opinion that's occurred between the scholars has never been about whether the niqab is part of Islam or whether it's a cultural practice and it has no place in the religion. That's not what we're discussing here. What we're discussing is one side of the table say that it's obligatory and a Muslim woman has to cover her face and if she doesn't do, she's sinning.
And the other side of the table say it's something that's highly recommended, it's part of the religion, we'd encourage all the sisters to wear the niqab but they just don't go that extra step and say that it's obligatory. You're going to be representing your belief which is the niqab is obligatory. And I'll be representing the other side which say that it's highly recommended but it's not obligatory.
And I think whenever you have a discussion like this, the one who is affirming an obligation, the burden of proof always lays with him. So if anybody watching this podcast isn't fully convinced with the proofs that you're going to bring forward, then the default is to say that it's highly encouraged, it's part of the religion, women should wear it but it's not necessarily an obligation. So let's begin then and I'll give you the floor to bring your first proof.
Okay first of all, the conditions that you mentioned SubhanAllah is very important as sisters do understand that these are the conditions that no scholar differs upon. The differences here are not about whether she can wear tight clothing or not. There's no discussion on that or whether her clothing can resemble the clothing of men or her clothing can be see-through etc.
The difference here amongst the scholars is the Niqab, is it obligatory or is it not? Some scholars are saying it is obligatory and some scholars are saying it is not obligatory. Again this is a valid difference of opinion. It's a valid difference of opinion and I strongly hold an opinion after research, after looking into the issue.
I sincerely believe that the woman should cover her face. It's an obligation, she must and that 's a strong issue. But I do honestly say from the bottom of my heart it's not a matter I will make it my first choice to discuss deeply because I can see great Imams of Islam differ on these issues.
With that being said, I don't also want people to take from this podcast that I'm saying that every woman who is not wearing the Niqab must follow my opinion and if they don't they are serious. I'm not saying that. I'm just here inshallah ta'ala just to put my point across, give my evidence, allow those sisters who are out there who haven't heard this discussion before to pick their side of whichever view they want to take inshallah ta'ala after the podcast.
And if inshallah ta'ala you were wearing the Niqab we don't want this podcast if it turns out that your points are convincing to that sister to say oh I'm now going to take off my Niqab because yeah I mean wear it as though it's Sunnah. Because that's something that both sides agree with, that's encouraging. And if you're not wearing it and after this podcast you've watched it, it's also again recommended for you to wear it.
We will encourage you to wear it. We ask Allah to protect our sisters wherever they are. Again this issue is not an issue I'm going to impose on anybody.
I don't impose it. I wouldn't even impose it on my wife. I wouldn't tell my wife you have to wear a Niqab if you don't wear Niqab I wouldn't say that.
Nor would I impose it on my daughters and my aunties and my mother or I wouldn't. I believe it's a Fiqh issue. The Ikhtilaf is very strong on this issue.
It's a valid difference of opinion. And Imam Muhammad said it is not befitting and it's not right for a Fiqh, a jurist to impose his opinion onto the people. To force it onto the people.
And once you study Fiqh you learn there's a valid difference of opinion. Put your point across and khalas. If the people find your points convincing, my own mashayikhs that I took from a large portion of them don't believe that Niqab is wajib.
They don't believe it's wajib. And so again I don't go about speaking to sisters about wearing Niqab and you're a sinner if you don't wear Niqab. I don't.
But I encourage it. So I just don't want people to leave with this and say this is it again. You're trying to make matters hard upon the Muslim women.
And Allah knows best. Coming to your question. There are evidences from the Quran and the Sunnah that point out that the Niqab is obligatory.
There are verses in the Quran. I'm so sorry to interject. I think what would be good for the viewers at home is when you're going through these verses to actually get the verses on their either their phone or their laptop because I'm sure you're going to be going through certain parts of verses certain words and they'll be good for them to follow along inshallah.
So the first evidence that I want to use, inshallah, to prove that the Niqab is wajib and obligatory is an ayah that I mentioned before and touched on before, where Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says: وَإِذَا سَأَلْتُمُهُنَّ مَتَاعًا فَاسْأَلُوهُنَّ مِنْ وَرَائِحِ حِجَابٍ ذَلِكُمْ أَطْهَرُوا لِقُلُوبِكُمْ وَقُلُوبِهِنَّ. This ayah is in Surah Al-Ahzab, ayah 53. Correct? Yeah, correct. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says: وَإِذَا سَأَلْتُمُهُنَّ مَتَاعًا (when you ask these women about a matter), فَاسْأَلُوهُنَّ مِنْ وَرَائِحِ حِجَابٍ (from behind a veil). Allah says: ذَلِكُمْ أَطْهَرُوا لِقُلُوبِكُمْ وَقُلُوبِهِنَّ (verily, this is a purification for their hearts and the hearts of the men).
Now, this ayah came down speaking to the believing women, أُمَهَاتُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ. The ayah says: وَإِذَا سَأَلْتُمُهُنَّ مَتَاعًا (if you ask them, the wives of the Prophet ﷺ), but even though it came down on the wives of the Prophet ﷺ, we believe that it is general and not restricted only to the wives of the Prophet ﷺ. The reason is because لِعُمُومُ الْعِلَّةِ (because of what Allah mentions after that), which is: ذَلِكُمْ أَطْهَرُوا لِقُلُوبِكُمْ وَقُلُوبِهِنَّ (that it is a purification for your hearts and their hearts).
صَاحِبُ الْمَرَاقِي mentions in his line of poetry in the book "أُصُولُ الْفِقْه" (a thousand lines in "أُصُولُ الْفِقْه"), which I encourage the طَلَبَةُ الْعِلْمِ (students of knowledge) to try to memorize, as it gives you an ability to understand how to extract rulings and understanding from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. He says: وَقَدْ يُخَصِّصُ وَقَدْ يُعَمِّمُ لِأَصْلِهَا لَكِنَّهَا لَا تَخْرِمُوا (and sometimes it can specify, and sometimes it can generalize for its origin, but it does not negate it).
The عِلَّة (reasoning) because the ayah now says: ذَلِكُمْ أَطْهَرُوا لِقُلُوبِكُمْ وَقُلُوبِهِنَّ (this is a reason why Allah legislated the hijab) is saying that it was here. And remember when I was talking about the مَقَاصِدَ العَظِيمَة (great objectives) and the حكمة بَالِغَة (great wisdom) behind why Allah made the hijab for women wajib, remember I mentioned تَهَرَةُ الْقُلُوبِ وَتَسْكِيَتُهَا (the purification of hearts and its cleansing), which was the first reason you mentioned. That was the first reason. So here, this is a reason. It’s a عِلَّة (reasoning), that’s what the scholars use. They call it a مَنَاط (the basis for this ruling). The reasoning for this ruling is: ذَلِكُمْ أَطْهَرُوا لِقُلُوبِكُمْ وَقُلُوبِهِنَّ.
According to the scholars, the reasoning can sometimes make something general and sometimes it can make it specific. Sometimes, some فقهاء (jurists) fall into a mistake, which is they bring a reasoning that actually damages the عِلَّة (reasoning) itself. I'll explain with an example.
First, let me give an example of a عِلَّة (reasoning) specifying: في فقه الشافعي (in the Shafi'i jurisprudence). There is a matter in fiqh that the شافعية (Shafi'is) believe, which is: لمس المرأة (touching a woman) breaks وضوء (wudu). The Shafi'is believe a woman breaks her wudu if you touch her. They use two آيات (verses) from the Qur'an: one from Surah Al-Ma'idah and one from Surah An-Nisa, where Allah سبحانه وتعالى mentions: أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء (or you have touched women). What is the ayah? أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء (that’s one). أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء (another place, Allah سبحانه وتعالى says).
In another verse, Allah سبحانه وتعالى says: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَقْرَبُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَأَنْتُمْ سُكَارَىٰ حَتَّى تَعْلَمُوا مَا تَقُولُونَ وَوَلَا جُنُبًا إِلَّا عَابِرِي سَبِيلٍ حَتَّى تَغْتَسِلُوا وَإِن كُنتُمْ مَرْضَىٰ أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنْكُم مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء (O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying, nor when you are in a state of janabah, except those who pass through, until you have washed your body. And if you are ill or on a journey or any of you comes from relieving himself or touches women).
Both of these verses mention لمس (touching a woman). The Shafi'is took from this the view of Abdullah bin Mas'ud regarding لمس (touching). There are two views: Abdullah bin Mas'ud and Abdullah bin Abbas. Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء (or you touch a woman), meaning if you touch a woman, it will break her wudu, based on the ayah. Then that means that if you touch a woman, it will break her wudu. Abdullah bin Abbas, on the other hand, believes that the word لمس (touch) here means جِمَاع (sexual intercourse), which is the strongest opinion, inshaAllah.
وَإِن كُتُمْ مَرْضٍ أَوْ جَعَلُ بِكُمْ مِنَ الْغَائِضِ But if you are ill or have a discharge...
لكن فقه الشافعي if they say that أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء that the لمس here is touching a woman there's an issue that they have in front of them which is what أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء النساء has an الف اللام in it this الف اللام according to the نحات the grammarians is استغراقية it means that it encompasses all women so the question is أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء النساء means all women so you guys say that if a man touches any woman she'll break his wudu they're now stuck so it means if I touch my mom she breaks my wudu if I touch my daughter she breaks my wudu if I touch my maternal or paternal auntie it breaks my wudu even though it's weird enough أصحاب الوجوه الشافعية some of them actually do say that every woman breaks their wudu like in there's other which is not the قُلْمُ عَتَمَةٌ فِي الْمَذْهَبِ is that the only one who breaks her wudu is of course your wife and women which are أَجَانِب foreign women the reason why how they've how have they specified أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء النساء here is general how have they come and specified it they specified it with عِلَّة a reasoning what's the reason they said مَضِنَّةُ لِلتَّلَذُّذِي they said the reason why the woman touching her is that sexual intercourse it's out of desires out of desires and that can't occur between you and your daughter or you and your mother unless you're a first or something you're a unique situation but other than that no no man's gonna find شَهْوَة in touching his daughter or his mother or his maternal paternal auntie but شَهْوَة does come if you if you touch your wife or you know if you touch a woman from outside مَضِنَّةُ لِلتَّلَذُّذِي this عِلَّة now specified the ayah أليس كذلك is that not the case so that's what they mean
وَقَدْ تُخَصِّصُ وَقَدْ تُعَمِّمُنَا And it may specify, and it may generalize...
It means that it may make it general. I'll give you another example. The prophet which is what is happening here which is happening in this situation, the prophet ﷺ he also said لَا يَحْكُمُ أَحَدٌ بَيْنَ أَثْنَيْنِ وَهُوَ غَضْبَانٌ (Bukhari and Muslim both narrated this). The prophet ﷺ said that a person should not judge between two people while he is angry. Now some of the scholars they said what's the reason again they're looking for the عِلَّة again we took this before every ruling of Allah has a حِكمة it has a عِلَّة a reason behind it so Allah's actions are filled with حِكم and wisdom.
Shaheed now what's the reason why Allah ﷻ doesn't allow a man to judge between two people while he's in a state of anger? تَشْوِيشُ الْفِكْر (distraction of thought), which is you haven't got control of your thoughts. So that's the عِلَّة. The عِلَّة here is تَشْوِيشُ الْفِكْر his mind's all over the place. There's going to be خَلَل (discrepancy) in his حُكم (judgment). The ruling that he passes, there's going to be a deficiency. Now, if you take تَشْوِيشُ الْفِكْر that his mind is all over the place, if you take that, that can be applied for many things. It can be used for someone who's excessively happy; he finds out the family accepted him for marrying their daughter, he's all over the place. He got his job back or his salary is going to be boosted, he's going to be in the CEO position or something like that, he's all over the place. He's going to judge unfairly; he's going to be biased in his ruling, not just for anger but for other reasons as well. We've taken a person who needs to go to the toilet, for example, and he's holding it and so he's just going to pass the ruling quickly because he needs to go to the toilet. We took وَهُوَ غَضْبَانٌ and we made it general. We didn't just restrict it to وَهُوَ غَضْبَانٌ.
إِذَا سَأَلْتُمُهُنَّ مَتَاعًا فَاسْأَلُهُنَّ مِنْ وَرَائِحِ حِجَابٍ If you speak to a woman, the women here are the prophet's wives, speak to them from behind the veil.
ذَلِكُمْ the reason for this is what? أَطْحَرُ (purification) لِقُلُوبِكُمْ (for your hearts) وَقُلُوبِهِنَّ (and their hearts).
Shaheed, pay attention here: were the wives of the prophet's hearts purified? Every Muslim woman would say أُمَهَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (the mothers of the believers), yes, my heart definitely, of course, the wives of the prophet's heart are more pure even than any man. After that, our mother Aisha has a purer heart than any man we know that exists right now. With that being said, how can a ruling that the Hajj and the need for it is more urgent for other people than the wives of the prophet ﷺ?
So we say based on عُلُومُ العِلَّةِ here, the ayah is the one used to say that the wives of the prophet ﷺ need to wear niqab. Scholars use this ayah to say that the prophet's wives need to wear niqab because of the ayah where Allah says: when you speak to the women فَاسْأَلُهُنَّ آسْتَ مِنْ وَرَاءِ حِجَابٍ (from behind a door).
Either way, pay attention here: it says مِنْ وَرَاءِ (from behind), meaning the curtain is there, and the woman is behind it; her entire body can't be seen from that woman مِنْ وَرَاءِ حِجَابٍ. Scholars use this ayah to say that the niqab is obligatory on whom? The prophet's wives.
But we're going to say it's not restricted to the prophet's wives. Why can't it be restricted to the prophet's wives? It is because of لِعُمُومِ الْعِلَّةِ (the general reason). This illā (reason) that was mentioned after it brings every woman in.
Okay, so I just want to summarize your argument, just to break it down for the people and make it easy for them. So this is talking about Surah number 33, Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah number 53, and we have an ayah which is quite clearly telling us that the wives of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم have to wear niqab. And that's actually something that both sides agree with. Even sides who disagree that niqab is wajib for all women, they actually say – just in case people aren’t aware – they actually say that yes, the wives of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم have to wear the niqab, but this was specific for them. And they also use this as a proof; that's a common ground that you have with your opponents. You then take it a step further and actually say that the reason for this is actually given in the ayah itself, and that is so “it's purer for their hearts and for the hearts of the believing men.” And your argument is actually, if that's the case for them, but we all agree that we're more pious than us, then how can it not be the case for us because our hearts are more in need for purification than theirs. And this isn't something you're bringing from your back pocket; it's actually a principle, and you've actually brought another example in Shafi'i fiqh where it's actually used, and another hadith about judging and ruling while you're angry as well, to prove that this is actually used.
Now the counter-argument from the people who believe the niqab is not wajib, who actually have a look at this ayah, I think the obvious argument is that Allah Himself quite clearly specified in this ayah, from the very start right until the very end, that this ayah was specifically for the wives of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. At the start of the ayah, Allah says, "Do not enter the houses of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم." At the end of the ayah, Allah says, "Do not marry his wives after him." And we both agree that the context denotes that this is actually talking about the wives of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. And in other ayat that are about the discussion of niqab, Allah does clearly – and I'm sure we'll come to his ayat as well – Allah does clearly address the believing women, for example, whereas in this ayah, He specifically didn’t address women as a whole. So that's an argument that they kind of put forward, and they say, therefore, you can't extrapolate or because Allah is the one who restricted it, and who gives you the right to make it general. But you've already explained how you did that, and that's a valid explanation.
My question, I suppose, would be this: we obviously know that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is responsible for teaching us the deen; he's responsible for teaching us the Quran, the explanation of the Quran. When this ayah came down, do we have a statement of his that says, "Oh my companions, this ayah is clearly talking about my wives, but just to let you guys know, it is applicable to all women?"
This ayah, first of all, is called Ayatul Hijab and the Quran – we need to understand how it speaks. I have to really, really study the way that the Quran talks and the way that the Quran addresses us. For example, if we look at the Quran, it doesn't tell us – no ayah in the Quran does Allah say that smoking is haram. Now somebody would come up to you and say, "If it’s haram, why did Allah, you know, why did Allah not mention it?" But what we say is, Allah mentions reasons. Allah says: "وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَنفُسَكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا وَ لَا تُلْقُوا بِأَيْدِيكُمْ إِلَى التَّهْلُكَةِ وَأَحْسِنُوا إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ." You’re going to bring those verses: “Don’t harm yourself, don’t cause yourself harm,” and we know that cigarettes have that, so we’re going to say that’s how the Quran speaks. The Quran is not a list; it doesn’t list all the haram. It gives you characteristics, it gives you hikam, it gives you ilal (reasons), it gives you manat (reasons for prohibition). You take it back to that.
When he said here, when Allah is saying "wa idha saltumunna mata'an fasaluhunna min warai hijab thalikum atharu liquloobikum wa quloobihinna," straight away the sahabah understood, and the mufassirun understood from it that the umumul ilah here is talking about the women to come. Because again, the Quran is not just for the sahabah. Allah says "liunzeerakum bihi wa man balag" – to warn you and whoever it reaches. The Quran is not only warning the sahabah and the disbelievers; it's warning anyone who it reaches.
Ibn al-Jarir al-Tabari, rahimahu Allah, in his tafsir of this ayah, said: "wa idha saltum azwaja rasulillahi sallallahu alayhi wa sallam wa nisaa' il-mu'mineena." He didn't just say "azwaja rasulillah" and stop there, he said "wa nisaa' il-mu'mineena" – he saw the umumul ilah in the ayah. "Allawati lasna lakum" – those who are not for you. What is it? "Bi azwajin mataa'a fas'alunna min warai hijab" – he says, "min warai sitrim baynakum wa baynahunna wa la tadkhulu alayhinna buyutahunna." Ibn al-Jarir is saying this, so what we take from it is, and it really does explain to us, is that the mufassir, Imam al-Mufassirin, Ibn al-Jarir al-Tabari, took from this ayah umumul ilah because of that last part of the verse that says, "Dhalikum atharu liquloobikum waquloobihinna." Did he specifically mention that that’s the reason he made it general?
Ibn al-Jarir al-Tabari? Yes, he mentioned it is general because he said the reason why he's making it general is the same root that you're going down because of the ilah that’s given. I mean, there’s no other reason he could have gotten it from. He could have only gotten it from that reason. There’s no other external point to refer that point to.
Ibn al-Jarir says, "wa idha sa'altum azwaja rasulillahi sallallahu alayhi wa sallam walisa' il-mu'mineena," to add that in there only means that he’s taking it from that principle of ilah.
Also, there’s a sabab nuzul of this ayah. Bukhari mentions it in his Sahih, from the narration of Abi Qilaba, who said, "Qala Anas ibn Malik, Anas said, 'Ana a'lamun nasi bi hadhihi al-ayah, ayat al-hijab.'" Anas ibn Malik said, "I am the one who knows this ayah, ayat al-hijab, better than anybody."
"Lamma uhdiyat Zaynabu ila rasulillah" – when Zaynab was given to the Prophet as a gift, "kanat ma'ahu fil-bayt" – she was in the house with him. "Sana'a ta'aman wada'a al-qawma" – the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم made food and he greeted the people. "After they ate, he gave them salams and indicated they could leave now. So, what did they do? Fa qa'adu yatahadathuna" – they stayed and they started to talk and talk. "Fa ja'al al-nabi sallallahu alayhi wa sallam yakhrut fathuma yarji'." The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم kept going out, coming in, and they were just sitting there talking, conversing amongst themselves. "And then the ayah came down: ya ayu al-ladhina amanu la tadkhuloo buyut al-nabiyyi illa yu'da lakum ila ta'amin ghayra nadhireena" – until "min warai hijab." "Wa idha saltumuna mata'a fasaluna min warai hijab dhalikum atharu liquloobikum waquloobihinna." The hijab was then thrown, and the people stood up.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that this, ya’ni, Bukhari, in the statement of Abi Qilaba an-Nasim al-Mahdi, he clearly and categorically mentions that this was the Prophet’s wives who were being addressed here. And of course, we say that the umum and the ‘illa of the ayah is our support.
There’s a point I need to mention, which I find so often amongst the Muslims, which is: "Ya akhi, the ayah is not clearly indicating this." It is clear, but you just have to think over it. Because remember, when you're distanced from the siyah and salib of the Quran, the way that the Quran talks, of course, for you it’s going to be like, “This doesn’t… it’s far-fetched.” You see it like that, you think this is what the Quran is trying to say. But we’re really saying this: ya’ni, the Quran is about wordings and meanings – always remember this: “Alfadh wa ma’ani.” Wordings and meaning, that’s what it is.
The whole discussion in the Quran and in the religion is about when do we just stick to the wording and when do we go big on the meaning. That’s the whole usool ya’ni, the whole concept of usool al-fiqh and the whole concept of the madahib al-arba’a and all of this, is this. That’s really what it revolves around. Yeah, this is what they call dalalat al-alfadh – the indications of these words. And the scholars divide it into two types: they say mantook and ma'foom.
Mantook means when you speak, what I take from your statements directly, and ma'foom is what is understood from your statement. The mantook, they categorize it into two: they say sarih and ghayru sarih. Ya’ni, direct and indirect. That which is sarih – the dalalat – ya’ni, the mantook – the statement I uttered, which is clear-cut, is mutabaq and tadammun. When I say “house” to you, you can straight away understand what I mean. Tadammun means window. When I say window to you, you understand a house is in there, it’s a portion of a house, which is tadammun. There’s dalalat which is ghayru sarih: mantook which is ghayru sarih, and that’s basically dalalat al-iltizam, dalalat al-iqtada, dalalat al-ishara, and dalalat al-tanbihi wal-ima.
Especially when you study the concept of illa in qiyas (one of the four pillars of qiyas), you speak about it. Dalalat al-tanbihi wal ima is what I used for the ayah, which I brought with the statement of sahib al-muraqi when he mentioned it, rahimahullah wa ta'ala. Dalalat al-ima wal tanbihi fil fanni tuqsadu ladadawihi an yuqrana al-wasfu bihukmin in yakun lighayrihi illatin ya'ibhuman fatun.
Just as a side benefit, some scholars say fatun instead of fatin and fatan. I think Nasr al-Buruj says the same in the sharih of the Maraq al-Su'ud, but it's best to say fatun ala wazni fa'ul and fa'ila fa'ula fa'ala sahib. It's better to say fa'ula ala hadhal wazm because of the fear that it might go wrong in the pronunciation of the poetry.
And there's mafhum now. Mafhum is what's understood from the conversation. The mafhum is mafhum al-muwafaqa and mafhum al-mukhalafa. Mafhum al-muwafaqa has two types: mafhum al-musawin and mafhum al-awla, which is sometimes called fahwal khitab mafhum, which is the same as ahlul khitab.
For example, you're not allowed to beat your mother. What are you going to use? You're going to say, waqada rabbuka la taabudu illa iya wa bilwalidayli ihsana imma yabu lughanna indaka al-kibra hadhuma uqilauma falata kullahuma uffin wala tanharhuma wa kullahuma qulan kareema falata kullahuma uffin. Don't say uff to them, but I'll say it to you, bro. It says uff, but you obviously say whatever is worse than uff or more than uff and it falls into that.
So, this is mafhum al-awla, meaning it's more befitting that you can't beat your mother up. It's called fahhul khitab. There's dalil, which is called dalil al-muqalafa, or mafhum al-muqalafa, and it's also known as dalil al-khitab, which is mafhum al-sifah or mafhum al-shart.
What I'm trying to say is that when you read the Quran, don't just take the sahih ulema as doing things as they wish. There's a way to take from the Quran in this way. I think the difficulty that you're going to have with proving that this particular ayah is actually making the niqab wajib upon everybody is that to say it's clear cut would be difficult because we obviously said it starts a valid difference of opinion between bona fide scholars.
The second thing is there's a difference between this and the smoking example that you brought up. For example, this is really talking about an issue that affects the majority of mankind, who are women, and it affects them almost on a daily basis. Many women today have to go to school to pick up their children. Even if they're inside their house, they have brother-in-law coming and they're going to have to wear niqab. And yet, to say something of this magnitude and this frequency, to imply it from a verse which is quite clearly and categorically talking to the wives of the Prophet just because of the umum al-illah, I think a lot of people might find that difficult to accept.
But I have another question for you as well. This is just a side point before we move on to the next point. Do you think the time of the Prophet and the people's hearts were better, the men? I do think they were better. Yeah, the people's hearts today are either worse than they were.
I agree with that totally. So, if that time, with that good heart that Abu Bakr was around, Umar was around, and the noble people were around, and Allah is saying to the women, "Cover your faces" at that time, when there were good people, isn't it not more sense today, where the fitnah is greater and harm is more? Something Muhammad ibn al-Shanqiyati said, I remember, is the fact that Allah mentions the men's and the women's hearts being pure in this ayah shows how general it is.
We did a podcast on the names and attributes of Allah, and I really liked your approach on that. You had a really good approach, and I asked you some difficult questions. For example, does Allah have a body? And you said, "I only affirm what Allah affirms, and I only negate what Allah negates. If He hasn't affirmed it, I don't affirm it. If He hasn't negated it, I don't negate it." I really liked the way you did that.
Now, you're saying, "Let's use logic," and let's just say, "Don't you think the wives of the Prophet, their hearts were purer than ours and the men at that time were purer than ours?" Can you understand why this is a bit contradictory, considering your previous approach was, "Allah says this and I stick to it," and that's what I'm trying to do here? Allah says this is for the wives of the Prophet. You're trying to say that, but their hearts were purer than ours; therefore, we should take it on as well.
I'm not saying in any way, shape, or form—and I've never said that—the Aqal is never a proof. The Aqal is only not a proof when it goes against the Amanah. People think it's going against the Quran and the Sunnah. A sound mind does not go against authentic evidence. That's a principle we believe in our religion. A sound mind does not go against clear, authentic evidences. That's the reality. Our religion is a logical religion. It's like some people think, "Don't use your Aqal at all." No way. Does Allah say, "Don't use your Aqal?" You just don't use your Aqal to oppose the Quran and the Sunnah because sometimes what could happen is you have a deficiency in your Aqal.
Because you're maybe young, you haven't experienced this issue, you don't know it yet, and you go against the Quran and Sunnah based on that immature mindset that you have. Okay, but other people are like, this issue is crystal clear. I mean, for example, homosexuality is clear to a lot of people that this is not the right thing, but then a group of people, a minority, might say, "I don't see that. I don't see that as a problem." Logically, they might say, "Okay, it's fine, it's not an issue with me." We say no. We're not going to use the person who's lost their sound mind; they don't have it anymore.
So again, we are going to use logic to prove an evident matter, which has been proved in the Quran and the Sunnah. I mean, the Prophet (alayhi salatu wasalam) used the whole chapter of Qiyas (analogy) to use your mind. The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said to a woman who came to him, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam: "Ya Rasulullah, my mother passed away, and there is some debt on her. She has some fasting which she has to do. Should I do it for my mother?" The Prophet said, "If your mother had some debt on her, would you have paid it back?" She said yes. He said, "This is the debt of Allah, so it is more befitting that it be paid."
I think each of these proofs that you're going to move forward with could be discussed for an hour and a half each. Just before I move on to this one, a couple of final questions: Do you believe slave girls have to wear the niqab?
No, I don't believe that. Why not? If they're included in this as well, the scholars by unanimous agreement mention it. By the way, the wives of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) are free, of course, but they're included in it. It would be purer for our hearts than their hearts if the slave girls covered, right? According to you, that's the reason it should be made general. So why don't you apply it to them as well?
There wasn’t ever a fear of a free man to have that for a slave woman; it wasn’t present then. But it can be now because, obviously, like you said, our hearts have changed. In fact, why don’t we get men to cover? Because nowadays, the hearts of men are actually attracted to men because of homosexuality. Do you see how this can be taken and made into a ridiculous kind of argument?
Now, let’s understand something when it comes to this issue of aura. When we speak about aura, we have to understand that aura has types. Scholars, when they look at the concept of aura, divide it into different types. There's aura in the salah and aura outside the salah. Aura means that which you can expose and that which you can't. For example, can a man pray without covering certain parts? What’s the aura of a man? Yes, from the knees to the navel. So, from the navel to the knees is aura outside the prayer, correct? A man has to cover that much. Does he have to have anything on his shoulders? Not outside the prayer. The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said in a hadith, "One of you should not pray without something on his shoulders." So, a man has to have something on his shoulders when he prays, but that’s not for outside the prayer. The aura is in the salah, not outside the salah for the man.
The woman has aura within the prayer and aura outside the prayer. Okay, that's one categorization of aura. There's another categorization of aura, which is known as aura to satr and aura to nathar. Aura to satr means there is an amount that has to be covered from a woman, whether it's a fitnah or not. It doesn't matter if it's a fitnah or not. It doesn't matter whether it's a fitnah or not.
For example, an elderly woman who's reached 90, and whose body parts can't be seen—her breasts can't be seen— even if the person feels like, "I'm not going to be attracted; if she walked naked around me, I wouldn't feel anything," or if she’s gone through surgery (may Allah protect us, and save and cure those who’ve gone through it), or she’s been burned and lost attraction, for instance... I'm just trying to give an example, okay? I'm not in any way offending anyone, and I hope it doesn't get taken out of context. In that situation, that woman is still not allowed to walk around naked. She still has to cover herself. Do you understand my point?
Some people think the concept of awrah is always connected to fitnah. That's what you said, do you understand my point? The men who are wearing clothing—if they're causing fitnah... and some men, I’m sorry, but I’m saying your reasoning from the ayah is that it’s purer for the hearts of the believing men and women that they’re covered. That’s your reasoning, right? So, I'm saying, a slave girl... I’m saying purifying the hearts of people, so it doesn’t cause issues of shahwa (desire) and desires in the man’s heart, that’s your reasoning. That’s mine, too, but I’m not saying that’s all for all types of hijab. My point is, I want you to understand all types of awrah, but I’m not saying that’s what it is. We’re talking about the face specifically, and this is what I’m saying to you.
The face is, first of all, two things: The niqab has been made obligatory for them. This is not my only ayah; I’ve got many other proofs to mention to prove my point. But this one, you and I both agree that the wives of the Prophet are commanded to cover up, right? True or false? It clearly says that. Because it’s clear, this verse is the ayah used to say that the wives of the Prophet are commanded to cover their faces.
But the ayah mentions a reason why it was prescribed for the Prophet’s wives: because it’s purer for them and purer for the men. So, any argument you bring against me saying this ayah proves the niqab is not obligatory, that means you have to strip it from the Prophet's wives as well. Not necessarily, because it depends. This ayah, we both agree, is specifically addressing the wives of the Prophet. So we agree on that—they have to cover the face. Now you're saying something that I'm not. You're saying the reason given for that should be extrapolated: “It’s pure for them and pure for the believing men; therefore, it should be extrapolated to all women.” I’m saying, if that’s the case, then it should be applied to slave women as well, because it’s pure for them and pure for the believing men not to see the slave women’s faces.
And someone could even take it as far as to say, in the 21st century, men are attracted to men, so why don't we cover the face of a man? That’s an extreme case, but the slave girl, I think, is a valid one.
I’m saying to you again, the ayah looks at the context in which it came down, and not only that, we don’t have that today. So, that’s why we don’t feel that connection on the issue of slavery; we don’t have that issue. So, we’re not going to talk about something we don’t have. Oh, but of course, we talk about the ruling on slavery, of course. It’s just a part of it. I’m just trying to say to you, we can’t speak about how people’s desires would be towards a slave because we don’t have that situation right now. You wouldn’t be able to speak about that. A slave is still a woman, right?
I’m saying to you, when that concept came about, by default, there was no shahwa (desire) that came from the men towards her, generally speaking, a female slave. I’m saying to you, a woman—fitnah is not there according to the reality because, look, okay, I know many brothers who are upper class. For example, this is what shows, upper class, upper class—they’re rich, they’re really, really rich, got money. Upper class. And when a lower class or middle-class girl comes up to them, they have nothing to suffer, like when she approaches them, for marriage or this or that—they will never even consider it. He’ll say, "I’m sorry, I can’t do it."
There are two things I’ll say: First of all, when you see someone on the street, you don’t necessarily know if they’re a slave or not. You’ve just seen their face. You don’t know—you can’t tell whether they’re a slave or not. The second thing is, you’re going to get yourself in trouble because of the hadith of Khatamiya, which we’re going to discuss later. I’m sure you believe that she was a slave girl, and Fadl ibn Abbas (again, we’ll come to it later) was attracted to her. He didn’t say he was attracted, but he just said her beauty attracted him. We’ll speak about that more when we come to it, insha’Allah.
But I just find it hard for you to say... I really find it difficult to accept, like, be cool yourself. I find it difficult to accept for you to say that nobody can be attracted to a female slave girl when she’s got the body of a woman, she’s got the face of a woman. I’m sure people can be attracted to that, and if that’s the case, then she should fall into this as well. That’s my argument. But ijma‘ took it out. There’s an ijma‘ by the way, I’m saying, okay, but how can an ijma‘ take out something that’s so clear from an ayah? You’re saying the ayah is saying, “Put it in,” and ijma‘ took it out. How does that make sense?
The ummah doesn’t disagree. Ijma‘ is a dalil (proof) itself. It’s not a problem, as is the Qur’an. Yeah, so that’s what I’m trying to say to you is that the ijma‘, the unanimous agreement, that the slave is not like the hā’ir (free woman)... Is it a mas’ala ijmā‘iyya? It’s like the hākam shar‘ī are not the same for them—the free woman and the slave woman. It’s not the same. I agree. Like, the niqab is not the same, but many ahkām (rulings) are not the same for free women and slaves. Not just that, many other rulings are not the same for free and slave women.
The last argument about this verse, which isn’t really a strong one but it’s worth mentioning anyway, is that this is really talking about inside the house. Many people argue, and it’s a quote from Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, as well as in Majmū‘a that this is referring to women inside the house when they’re not wearing their khimār (head covering) or not wearing any loose clothing. So, of course, you have to speak to them behind the veil. As for applying this outside of the house, what makes you do that?
So, do you believe that niqab needs to be worn in the house?
No, I’m with you on this one. I’m just saying I’m bringing the argument. But I think it’s worth explaining to the people. Yeah, so this one, if it supports us, to be honest, it’s actually really good for us. We can actually say, “Okay, no problem.”
وَإِذَا سَأْلْتُمُونَ مَتَعًا فَسَأْلُهُنَّ مِنْ وَرَائِ حِجَابِ ذَلِكُمْ أَطْهَرُوا لِقُلُوبِكُمْ وَقُلُوبِهِنَّ (When you ask them for something, ask from behind a screen. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts.)
This is in the house. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned, by the way, he’s not the only one who mentioned that, but let’s take that view and say this is regarding the house.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah used the other ayah that I’m going to use later: يَعْيَنَ بِقُلِّ أَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِهِنَّ فَأُوْسَيْدْ So we’re not in any issue. One, we’re going to use it for outside, and one evidence we’re going to use for inside the house. So if you say that وَإِذَا سَأَلْتُمُوهُنَّ مَتَاعًا is referring to the house, no problem. In the house, you have to wear niqab, and outside the house, you have to wear niqab based on another ayah. Then, no problem.
So, another thing is, does it not make more sense to wear niqab outside than in the house? For example, I suppose it makes the same sense. If you’re inside the house, you’ve got a non-mahram coming—obviously, no one’s talking about when the niqab is inside the house when there’s no one else inside the house. Even the ayah is not talking about that, I’m sure you know. But wait, the ayah is not talking about that. But the woman, she’ll never be alone with a man in the house anyways.
No, I’m saying, the husband, for example, no, we’re not denying that. But we’re saying when a woman’s in the house, yeah, she’s going to be with her mahram because no other man can enter onto her house.
Okay, perfect. So, her having to stay at home with her husband, for example, yeah, you’re saying this ayah shows that she still has to cover herself.
No, I’m saying if someone comes to ask a question, like the ayah clearly says, so somebody— for example, you have a daughter, she’s an ‘ālimah (scholar), and then men come to ask her questions about Islam. Of course, either you’re going to be home or her husband’s going to be home, correct?
Now, because no other men—so this time when she’s in her house, protected, yes? Secondly, she’s got her mahrams around, yes? Are you there? Yeah, you’re telling her she needs to wear niqab, whereas outside, when she’s not protected in her own household, she’s out in the open, too. She doesn’t have mahram around her because she doesn’t have to. Yeah, you’re saying that she doesn’t have to wear niqab.
I’m saying those who say that, yeah. Yeah, I agree it’s not a strong argument, but it’s worth mentioning.
Okay, what’s the second ayah that you’re going to bring up to or hadith that you’re going to bring as a proof that the niqab is wājib?
So, the statement of Allah subhanahu wa ta‘ala when He says: يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِهِنَّ This ayah, Allah says: "O Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the believing women to bring down over themselves part of their outer garments (jilbāb). This is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful."
Abdullah ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, and he’s considered to be from the noble sahābah, said: "Amara Allahu nisa’il mu’minīna idhā kharajna min buyūtihinna fī hājatin an yuwātina wujūhihinna min fawq rūsihinna bil jalābīb." Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said that Allah subhanahu wa ta‘ala commanded the believing women that if they leave their houses for a need, they should cover their faces from above their heads with the jilbāb.
Now, this is a very powerful point that I want, insha'Allah, to be taken on board. Ibn Abbas is saying that Allah commanded the believing women to cover their faces, and the word jilbāb proves in my opinion that the jilbāb is something a woman needs to cover her face with.
The tafsīr of a sahābi is a proof. Some scholars say that the tafsīr of a sahābi can be considered marfū‘ (authentic) because how can this sahābi just talk about the Qur’an with no evidence for it?
Allah says: وَلَا تَقُولُوا لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُكُمْ الْكَذِبَ هَذَا حَلَالٌ وَهَذَا حَرَامٌ لِتَفْتَرُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ لَا يُفْلِحُونَ “And do not say about what your tongues assert, 'This is lawful and this is unlawful,' to invent lies against Allah. Indeed, those who invent lies against Allah will never succeed.”
And Allah also says in another ayah, He says, subhanahu wa ta'ala: وَلَا تَكُونُوا كَالَّذِينَ And Allah also says in another ayah: إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّيَ الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَالْإِثْمَ وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَأَنْ تُشْرِكُوا بِاللَّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا وَأَنْ تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ “Indeed, my Lord has only prohibited immorality—what is apparent of it and what is concealed—and sin, oppression without right, associating others with Allah for which He has not sent down any authority, and saying about Allah what you do not know.”
You can’t just speak about Allah with no knowledge. You have to have evidence. A sahābi would not have that jura'ah (audacity). So, the scholars speak with knowledge, and you cannot comment on the Qur’an with no proof or evidence. So, Abdullah ibn Abbas, when he commented on the verse, he mentioned that: أَمَرَ اللَّهُ نِسَاءَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِذَا خَرَجْنَ مِنْ بُيُوتِهِنَّ فِي حَاجَةٍ أَنْ يُغَطِّيْنَ وُجُوهَهُنَّ مِنْ فَوْقِ رُؤُوسِهِنَّ بِالْجَلَابِيبِ This is powerful.
Yubdīna 'aynān wāḥidān (they should show one eye) is also a narration from our mother, Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her. She said: تُصْدِلُ ٱلْمَرْأَةُ جِلْبَابَهَا مِنْ فَوْقِ رَأْسِهَا عَلَىٰ وَجْهِهَا The woman covers herself with her jilbāb from above her head to her face. Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, said: تُصْدِلُ ٱلْمَرْأَةُ The woman she saddles jilbābahā (jilbāb) min fawqī rāsi-hā (from above her head) ‘alā wajhī-hā (to her face).
Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, the wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him), said: لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الْآيَةُ When this ayah was revealed: يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِهِنَّ The women of the Ansar came out, ka'annā ‘alā rūūsīhinna al-ghirbān, it was like they had crows on their heads, meaning their heads were covered, and ‘alayhinna akīsātun sūdun yalbistunnahā (they were wearing black cloths).
So here, what we realize is that these women came out in pitch black jilbābs.
Umm Muhammad ibn Sirīn said: سَأَلْتُ عَبِيدَةَ السَّلْمَانِيِّ I asked Abīdat al-Salmānī, who is a major Tābi'ī. As Imam Ibn Hajar rahimahullah mentioned, he is a major Tābi'ī. He lived in two eras, meaning he became Muslim two years before the Prophet’s passing, alayhi salatu wasalam. Imam adh-Dhahabī, rahimahullah, mentions that he took from Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abdullah ibn Mas'ūd, and Abdullah ibn Zubayr. He took from senior companions. Abīdat al-Salmānī is a noble Tābi'ī. He said when the ayah يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِهِنَّ was revealed, he covered his face and his head, and he showed one of his eyes.
From this, we take the meaning of jilbāb as being a cloth above the khimār that covers the woman’s entire body.
Qurtubi mentions that when Qurtubi passed away in 671, he said that what is correct is: "أنَّهُ ثَوْبٌ الَّذِي يَسْتُرُ جَمِيعَ الْبَدَنِ." He said that the jilbab, the strongest interpretation, is a cloth from her clothing that covers the entire body of the woman. Ibn Hazm, rahimahullah, says: "هُوَ مَا غَطَّى جَمِيعَ الْجِسْمِ لَا بَعْدَهُ." The word jilbab refers to whatever covers the entire body of the woman, not part of it. It is placed on the head, and then it covers the face from there.
Okay, a couple of questions. So, just one last point I want to mention in that as well: Our mother Aisha, radiallahu ta'ala anha, and this proves that the jilbab is something that’s placed on the head. You can cover the face with it, and you can put it back up if you want to.
Okay, our mother in the Hadith of Al-Ifk: Safwan ibn al-Mu’attil, a noble companion, radiallahu ta'ala anhu, said that Aisha said: When he saw me, he recognized me. He saw me before the Ayat al-Hijab came down, before the Ayah came down. He used to know me, and I woke up with his istirja’: "إِنَّا لِلَّهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعُونَ." When he said that, I woke up, and the jilbab was on top. She said, “I covered my face straight away. It was on her head, so she covered it on her face.” This is a tafsīrīyun amālīyun fīmthālī qawlihi ta'ala: "يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ." That she covered her face.
Imam Ibn al-Jalīl al-Ṭabarī said: Allah, ta'ala, says: "ذِكْرُ اللَّهِ نَبِيِّهِ مُحَمَّدٍ." Allah is saying to His Prophet Muhammad: "يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ." Say to your wives, and your daughters, and the women of the believers, that they should draw over themselves part of their outer garments. "وَلا تَشَبَّهْنَ بِالْإِمَاءِ فِي لِبَاسِهِنَّ إِذَا خَرَجْنَ مِن بُيُوتِهِنَّ لِحَاجَتِهِنَّ." Do not imitate the slave girls in their clothing when they leave their houses for their needs.
Look what He said after that: "فَكَشَفْنَ شُعُورَهُنَّ وَوُجُوهَهُنَّ وَالَّا لَكِنْ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ." And they should veil their hair and faces with their jilbab so that a corrupt person doesn’t harm them. "لِئَلَّا يَعْرِضَ لَهُنَّ فَاسِدٌ إِذَا عَلِمَ أَنَّهُنَّ حَرَائِرَ." So that no corrupt individual would harm them when they recognize that they are free women.
They would say, 'إذا علمت أنهن حرائرٌ من القول' (If you know that they are free women from the words). Nasafi also said the same thing. He says, 'يا، إن بيقول أزواجك وبناتكِ ونساء المؤمنين يدرن عليهن من جلابيهن' (O, indeed, say to your wives, your daughters, and the believing women that they should draw over themselves from their jilbabs). The word 'من' in the Nasafi, who died in 710 AH, said the word 'من' is للتعبد (for the purpose of worship), because the word 'من' comes للتعبد (for the purpose of worship) sometimes, and it also comes as Bayanul Jinz, like the ayah, 'وننزل من القرآن ما هو شفاء' (And We reveal from the Qur'an that which is a healing). Here, you can't say it's للتعبد (for the purpose of worship), because the Qur'an, all of it, is a cure, you see. So 'من' here is للتعبد (for the purpose of worship). Ibn al-Qayyim mentions that in his kitab 'الداء والدواء' (The Disease and the Cure).
'وننزل من القرآن ما هو شفاء' (And We reveal from the Qur'an that which is a healing), 'من' here is Bayanul Jinz. Also, 'إِنَّ الذين كفروا من أهل الكتاب والمشركين من أهل الكتاب' (Indeed, those who disbelieve among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists) is Bayanul Jinz, it's not للتعبد (for the purpose of worship).
However, in 'يا، إن بيقول أزواجكِ وبناتكِ ونساء المؤمنين يدرن عليهن من جلابيهن' (O, indeed, say to your wives, your daughters, and the believing women that they should draw over themselves from their jilbabs), it is للتعبد (for the purpose of worship), which shows that it refers to some covering the hair, and the rest of it she covers with her face.
Abu Hayyan al-Nahwi al-Andalusi, who died in 745 AH, is a great scholar. He says that 'من' in 'جلبابهن' (their jilbabs) is للتعبد (for the purpose of worship), and 'عليهن' refers to all of their bodies. The word 'عليهن' is used for that, meaning 'شامل لجمع أجسادهن' (covering all their bodies). He was a grammarian, by the way. Abu Hayyan has a شرح (commentary) on the ألفية of Ibn Malik. He's the great Imam Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi, who met Sheikh al-Isam Ibn Taymiyyah, and they even debated on some issues. Imam in لغة العربية (Arabic grammar), he’s the man by the way that Ibn Taymiyyah said to him, 'أعرف مسائل من النحو التي أنت وحتى سيبويه لا تعرفونها' (I know matters of grammar that you and even Sibawayh do not know). Abu Hayyan loved Ibn Taymiyyah before that, but when he said that, it put something in his heart towards Ibn Taymiyyah. Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi, رحمه الله (may Allah have mercy on him), al-Nahwi, mentions that 'من' here is للتعبد (for the purpose of worship).
And then he said, 'عليهن' means 'شامل لجمع أجسادهن' (it encompasses her whole entire body, their faces), because that which used to show from pre-Islamic times was 'هو الوجه' (the face). Okay, Qurtubi said something as well. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah also said the same. I don't know if Ibn Taymiyyah says this in a few places. Abu Bakr al-Jassas al-Hanafi also said the same. Suyuti, in his kitab, I never read the words of Suyuti from Suyuti, I read them from عون المعبود (Awn al-Ma'bud). Suyuti also says the same when he comes to 'يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ' (that they should draw over themselves from their jilbabs). Sheikh Muhammad Ibrahim al-Sheikh also said the same thing about the ayah that I mentioned. Sheikh Ibn Rabas mentioned the same that I mentioned from the ayah. So I can mention all of those quotes, but all of them are pointing to 'يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ' (that it means for the woman to cover her face).
So, I want to know what you know that they don't know, these great scholars. So you're saying, from this, this is for the people following at home. This is again in سيوطي (Suyuti), الأحزاب (Surah Al-Ahzab), Surah number 33, ayah number 59, I think ayah 59, yeah. Okay, so you're saying, a couple of questions, actually, just before I forget them: so you believe that it's a واجب (obligatory) that the woman covers everything from her apart from one eye? That's what Ibn Abbas said. So you believe that if she uncovers both eyes, she's sinning? Ibn Abbas, رضي الله عنه, and Abidat al-Salmani, both of them, they mentioned covering one eye, covering, you know, both eyes. Different views have been mentioned from them because you said the tafsir of a companion like Ibn Abbas is a حجة (proof). It is a حجة (proof), okay, so it's a proof. So we have to take everything from his statement, we can't just take the fact that it covers the face, we have to also say this covers the one eye as well. So that's your position on the matter: you believe that it's obligatory to cover one eye, and if the woman has to cover her face but leaves two eyes open, she's actually sinning? No, she's not sinning. She's not? So how can you say that this is a proof but then not take all of the proof? That's something difficult for me to understand. You're right, it's a good point, اللهم بارك (may Allah bless), it's actually a valid point and a good point.
Before you, Sheikh al-Sahib Sheikh al-Albani رحمه الله pointed out, okay, yeah, from his kitab, he pointed that out, that Ibn Abbas's قول (statement), which is 'يُدْنِينَ عَيْنًا وَاحِدَةً' (they show one eye), he said this statement of Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه. By the way, Sheikh al-Albani went a few ways. First of all, the issue of Ali ibn Abi Talha, which, yeah, he made it weak, right? He made the statement weak. I thought you would point that out as well. Yeah, I just thought of this one just as you were saying it.
So, Ali ibn Abi Talha said, 'لم أسمع هذا من ابن عباس' (I did not hear this from Ibn Abbas). So, the first point, but he's from the students of Ibn Abbas, Ali ibn Abi Talha, just to show the authenticity. And Ali ibn Abi Talha, he heard from the ثقات (reliable ones) of the students of Ibn Abbas, like Mujahid, Ikrimah, and others. So, the scholars of علم الحديث (the science of Hadith) take Ali ibn Abi Talha's views from Ibn Abbas, like Ibn Hajar mentions in his ترجمة (biography). So, it's authentic, Ibn Abbas did say this, but the part that you pointed out, which is 'وَيُدْنِينَ عَيْنًا وَاحِدَةً' (and they show one eye), the reason why that part of the statement of Ibn Abbas and also Abidat al-Salmani is because no other Imam—I mean, for example, Ibn al-Jarir when he mentions it, I mentioned Qurtubi’s statement, of course, we scrutinize the statements that we bring.
When I looked at the statements of Qurtubi, for example, that he mentions, when I looked at, for example, the statement of our mother Aisha رضي الله عنها, Ibn Hayyan al-Andalusi, Qurtubi, I'm trying to bring all of their views to bring us خلاصة (the summary), none of them ever mentioned that issue of one eye showing and one eye not.
I mean, it’s good, the more she covers, the better. Do you see my point? But that doesn’t seem consistent with the views of the great scholars like Abu Hayyan, when he mentioned Qurtubi, when he mentioned even Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, they all mention just covering the face. They all say covering the face. So, I haven't seen that from anyone other than those two قول (statements) that I brought, okay?
And what is it from the آية (ayah) that indicates covering the face? You believe that the word 'جلباب' (jilbab), which is mentioned in the ayah, is by default something that covers the face? So, yeah, the word 'جلباب' means a cloth 'فوق الخمار' (above the khimar), it is like the position of the 'عباءة' (cloak), and it covers the entire body of the woman.
And I mentioned the قول (statement) of Qurtubi, which is صحيح (authentic), and he said, 'ثوب الذي يستر جميع البدن' (a garment that covers the entire body), and Ibn Hazm, who said, 'هو مغطي جميع الجسم لا بعضه' (it is something that covers the entire body, not just part of it). And the fact that Aisha رضي الله عنها said, 'فغطيت وجهي بجلبابي' (I covered my face with my jilbab), so it's something that does cover the face.
And also the statements of the great scholars like Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi, who said it means covering the face when he came to the word 'عليهن' (over them), he said 'أيا على وجوههن' (it refers to their faces). Qurtubi, what he said as well, رحمه الله تعالى (may Allah have mercy on him). Qurtubi has a very powerful statement because it gives you the context.
He said: "لما كانت عادة العربيات التبذل" i.e. the women before Islam—this is, you know, the ayah comes down in a context, he's trying to deal with a problem that too that was there. So, we have to ask ourselves, what were the women like before this ayah came down? Qurtubi mentions (with the idea of 671 Hijriya—he's a great Mufassir, he has a Tafsir Quran book, he's rather, his Kitab in Tafsir is one of the strongest books when it comes to Ahkam al-Quran) in the 14th volume, in the Tafsir of this ayah in "يا أيها النبي قل لأزواجك" he said: "لما كانت عادة العربيات التبذلا وكن يكشفن وجوههن كما يفعل الإماء" (the women before then used to show their faces like the slave girls) "وكان ذلك داعية إلى نظر الرجال إليهن وتشاؤب الفكرة فيهن" (and that used to invite men to look at them and to be preoccupied with thinking about them). "أمر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لما أمر الله رسوله أمر الله رسوله أن يأمرهن بإرخاء الجلابيب عليهن إذا أردن الخروج إلى حوائجهن." We just mentioned that their faces were showing. He pointed at Ahkam al-Quran, and then he said the jilbab was sent down for that reason, to cover all of that.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah even mentioned that, he said, "قبل أن تنزل آية الحجاب كان نساء يخرجن بلا جلباب يرى الرجل أمة وجهها ويديها" (before the verse of hijab was revealed, women used to go out without jilbabs, and men would see a woman's face and hands). These were things that were happening, and then this ayah came down: "يا أيها النبي قل لأزواجك وبناتك ونساء المؤمنين يدنين عليهن من جلابيبهن."
You know, when you read Tafsir books, it's important that you go to, especially when these issues of hukum—it's Ahkam amaliyya, right? It's Fiqh issues, right? I generally go to the books of Ahkam al-Quran, and I'm finding that Ahkam al-Quran just nearly, ya'ani, some of them are even taking words from each other.
Abu Bakr al-Jassas was a Hanafi. When he came to the ayah, he says (it's also Ahkam al-Quran book) he says: "في هذه الآية دلالة على أن المرأة الشابة مأمورة بستر وجهها عن الأجانب وإظهار الستر والعفاف عند الخروج لئلا يطمع فيها أهل الريب فيها" (In this verse is evidence that the young woman is commanded to cover her face from foreign men and to show modesty and chastity when going out, so that those with doubts and sickness in their hearts do not have desires for them).
Suyuti is al-Shafi'i, great scholar of the Shafi'i Madhab. Okay, he mentions "جلابيب" he says: "هذه آية الحجاب في حق سائر النساء فيها وجوب ستر الرأس والوجه عليهن" (This is the verse of hijab concerning all women, in it is the obligation of covering the head and face for them). Yeah, I don't think there's a dispute that there are many scholars from from all different disciplines whether Muhaddithun, Mufassirun interpret this ayah meaning to cover the face. I don't think that's off a dispute. I think the other side would also say that there's scholars on that. I don't know if you've come across this across this or not but scholars who haven't gone as far as saying to cover the face with this particular ayah, did you come across from the other side? From the other side for example, yeah, Shaykh Nasir Rahimahullah brings some some quotes here or there, even mentions Ibn Abbas. He does yeah, so that's what that's what I've got written down here where he's got authentically transmitted from Ibn Abbas: "she should bring the jilbab close to her face without covering it." Yeah, first of all that statement Al-Imamu Abu Dawud narrated in his Masail from Ibn Abbas, that's right yeah correct.
So, Abu Dawud narrating this from Al-Imam Ahmad sorry Al-Imamu the Sahabi Jaleel Abdullahi ibn Abbas, two points: number one, where did Abu Dawud bring this? Under what chaptering or what part of what section did he bring it under? He brought under the chapter of what is a woman wearing in the state of Ihram. That's the issue we're going to come to Insha'Allah that the woman is she's not allowed to wear niqab in the state of Ihram and she's not allowed to wear gloves in the state of Ihram. We're going to come to the Hadiths regarding that Insha'Allah, the podcast allows it. So that's number one to take on board. Also this the statement of Rauh, he said when Ibn Abbas Radiallahu Ta'ala Anhu said: "تدني الجلباب إلى وجهها ولا تضرب به" (she should bring the jilbab close to her face without striking with it), Ibn Abbas tuqi fi halati al-Hajj, she can't wear the niqab, right? She can't cover herself with the niqab. So that's what Ibn Abbas is talking about Radiallahu Ta'ala Anhu and Rauh explained that through Ibn Abbas, ya'ani how did she do it then? How did she cover her face? Ibn Abbas when he said: "ولا تضرب بها" he says Abdullahi ibn Abbas, Rauh said to him: "ولا تضرب بها" what about if she what she doesn't throw over her face? "فأشار إليه" (so he pointed towards) "كملي جليبو بالمرأة ثم أشار إلى ما خدها" (the edge of the jilbab of the woman, then he pointed to her cheek), she takes it from her side and she does it like this. She's wearing niqab, she just covers it from the "من الجلباب" (from the jilbab), from the side of her corner, she just covers her jilbab "قال تغطيه" (he said she covers it) with it or over her face. Ya'ani "هو مسدول على وجهها" (that which hangs over her face), that which covers it. Ya'ani Ibn Abbas is talking about Hajj "من أمال العلماء" (from the actions of the scholars). Sheikh al-Albani weakens this based on calling it "شاد" (shad), lakin that's far fetched. Calling that what? "شاد نعم" (shad, yes) because shad means ya'ani mukhalafat al-thiqa (contradicting the trustworthy) and the "وجه الباب" (wajh al-bab) itself, the "وجه الباب" (wajh al-bab) itself, it's something that you said goes on the top and then covers the entire body like this, but it can be something that lifts up like this. I'm trying to understand, does it mean that if you're wearing a jilbab by default you're definitely covering your face or not?
Jilbab, you can remove it. It's stuck to your jilbab, okay? It comes down from the head, you can remove it, put it up. The woman can't be without it. The woman can't be without it. It could happen that she puts it off, like our mother Aisha did, okay? So, in the ayah itself, because obviously it doesn't mention face in the ayah, it says "عليهن" (alayhinna - upon them), all of them. That's where it comes in, "عليهن" (alayhinna). As I mentioned Abu Hayyan's statement, he said "عليهن على وجوههن" (alayhinna ala wujuhihinna - upon them, upon their faces), okay? And "عليهن" (alayhinna) is obviously general, all of them. And for someone to actually exclude face, then they have to bring the proof for that. Okay, let me just see what I have written on this one because... can I can I can I point a contention as well?
Yeah, go on. You said before that the Prophet's wives have to wear it, right? Yeah, they have to cover their faces. Yeah, correct. "يا أيها النبي قل لأزواجك" (Ya ayyuha al-nabiyyu qul li azwajika - O Prophet, tell your wives) was mentioned first, okay? "وبناتك" (wa banatika - and your daughters), okay? "ونساء المؤمنين" (wa nisa'i al-mu'minin - and the women of the believers). Does that is that not a qareena wadhiha (clear indication) that the statement of... is that not a clear indication that the ayah "يدنين عليهن من جلابيبهن" (yudnina alayhinna min jalabibihinna - that they should cast down over themselves their outer garments) it means "ستر وجوههن" (satru wujuhihinna - covering their faces) with their jilbabs because the qareena here is "قل لأزواجك" (qul li azwajika - say to your wives) and we already took that the wives of the Prophet have to cover their faces and there's no niza' (disagreement) by the way between the scholars. This is not disputed that the wives of the Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam need to cover their faces. Sheikh Nasser doesn't disagree with that. I think what a lot of people think who don't believe niqab is wajib (obligatory), they think the jilbab is something that covers like the body, is a loose fitting garment that covers the body a lot of people, but not necessarily the face. Okay, I'm just conscious of time so I'm happy to move on to another point Insha'Allah.
So you're saying my point was invalid? I'm not saying your point wasn't valid. I think it's a strong point, but I'm also just conscious of time. We've got a lot of these points to get to Insha'Allah. Your point, you're bringing the proofs... No, no, I'm happy to stop, carry on to the next point. Yeah, yeah, the next point is another... oh yeah, IFT private. Okay, another proof, the next evidence. Before we do that, let's just summarize proofs because one thing I'm trying to do is at the end of each proof just summarize it. You're right, it's important to do that. So the first ayah, because we didn't actually summarize that one, which is the ayat in Surah Al-Ahzab and you're talking about that the wives of the Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam who are being addressed in this ayah, they're clearly told to cover their face and we agree, both parties actually agree that the wives do have to cover their face as a result of this ayah. The reason for that is given that it's purer for their hearts and the hearts of believing men and obviously your argument is that if it's purer for them whose hearts were already purer than ours then surely it means it for us as well. The contention from the other side is that we don't have the statement of the Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam saying by the way my companions this applies to all women. We also don't have a statement of a companion saying that this is actually how I understood the ayah and also the fact that the ayah itself is talking about rules and regulations specific to the wives of the Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam it's a bit of a stretch to then take it out to everyone just based on that one ayah alone. The second ayah is also in Surah Al-Ahzab, this is the second proof you brought forward, ayah number 59 and the part of the ayah which is "يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ" (yudnina alayhinna min jalabibihinna) and you're saying that this is understood by like you've almost bought an ijma' (consensus), almost almost bought an ijma' by so many people that the jilbab is something that is placed on top of the khimar (headscarf), on top of the head scarf, top of the head and it's brought down and there's nothing there that says although the ayah doesn't specifically say face it's actually the proof for the people who want to exclude the face they have to bring it because the jilbab is from here all the way down and we did bring a statement from Ibn Abbas saying that it means to bring it close to the face but not putting it over the face but you said that was in ikhlam (ihram) which there is an exception for which again we're Insha'Allah going to get on to.
So my third evidence Insha'Allah is the statement of Allah: "وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا" (Wa la yubdina zinatahunna illa ma thahara minha - And let them not display their beauty except what is apparent thereof). The wajhud dalalah (point of evidence) from the ayah is Allah Ta'ala is prohibiting the women from what? "إِبْدَاءِ زِينَتَهُنَّ" (ibda'i zinatihinna - displaying their beauty) for other than their maharim (unmarriageable relatives) because the ayah "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ" (illa ma thahara minha waliyadribna bikhumurihinna 'ala juyubihinna - except what is apparent thereof; and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests) ya'ni it mentions the women, the people she can't show it to. So this ayah Allah is saying to the women do not bring out into public your beauty for other than your what? Your maharim, okay? "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا" (illa ma thahara minha - except what is apparent thereof) like "كَظَاهِرِ ثِيَابِ" (kathahiri thiyabi - like the outer [surface] of clothing) where sometimes the woman's parts might be seen because of the clothes sticking to her or stuff like that and I want to use this part strong because "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا" (illa ma thahara minha) is used, except that which happens to be out in ya'ni that which becomes a... what would be the best translation "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا" (illa ma thahara minha)? What is just made, what is apparent, what is what is a kind of what is apparent? What's apparent here doesn't say, the ayah doesn't, it did not say "إِلَّا مَا أَظْهَرْنَ مِنْهَا" (illa ma azharna minha - except what they have made apparent), yeah? Because if you say the other tafsir (interpretation) that the face and the hand is what is what it's referring to, you're in trouble because you're saying that she made because the woman who's leaving the house who's showing her face and her hands she's making those things appear like "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا" (illa ma thahara minha) means it happens to be like that, you know, she's not doing it. Okay, let me just simplify just for the people so for them to follow at home, this is an ayah in Surah An-Nur, Surah number 24, ayah number 31 and there's many parts that I suppose you're going to pick from this ayah but the one you're focusing on right now is "وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا" (Wa la yubdina zinatahunna illa ma thahara minha) and it's a command not to for the women not to display the zina (beauty) "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا" (illa ma thahara minha), this is the bit you're focusing on right now, except what is made apparent and you're saying that what is made apparent is like a woman is walking, she's covered up but the wind is blowing and it kind of closed just to show her outline, she can't help that, she's excused for that. Okay? And Ibn Kathir Rahimahullah pointed that out, he said: "أَيْ لَا يُظْهِرْنَ شَيْئًا مِنَ الزِّينَةِ لِلْأَجَانِبِ إِلَّا مَا لَا يُمْكِنُ إِخْفَاؤُهُ قَالَ ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ كَالرِّدَاءِ وَالْثِّيَابِ" (That is, they should not show any of their adornment to non-relatives except what cannot be concealed. Ibn Mas'ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said: like the outer garment and the clothes). So the women "لَا يُظْهِرْنَ شَيْئًا" (la yuthhirna shay'an - they should not show anything) "مِنَ الزِّينَةِ لِلْأَجَانِبِ" (mina al-zinati lil'ajanibi - of their adornment to non-relatives). Look at Ibn Kathir when he said, he says "لَا يُظْهِرْنَ" (la yuthhirna) "لَا يُظْهِرْنَ" (la yuthhirna) means she's doing it, it's important. "ظهارة" (thahara) doesn't mean you made it, it comes out by itself, it's not something you did. Okay? So she's not allowed to do that from the beauty from the "أجانب" (ajanib - non-relatives) except that which "لَا يُمْكِنُ إِخْفَاؤُهُ" (la yumkinu ikhfa'uhu - she cannot hide it). Qala Ibn Mas'ud Radiya Allahu Anhu, Ibn Mas'ud, he said "كَالرِّدَاءِ وَالثِّيَابِ" (kal-rida'i wath-thiyabi - like the outer garment and the clothes) like the lower and the upper garment or something from her part, her body shows, she's trying to pick up something and her hand shows for example or the wind sticks the cloth to her, you can tell even if a woman wears the biggest hijab everything she covers up you can tell how tall she is, how short she is, you can tell her weight, her size, everything can be seen, that's not upon her, she doesn't have to worry. Okay? So the fact that Allah used "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ" (illa ma thahara) shows it's something that happens by itself, not something that a woman does to herself.
And it's important for me because there's another تفسير (tafsir - interpretation) of Ibn Abbas which you're probably going to bring where he says that "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ" (illa ma thahara - except what is apparent) means "الوَجْوَ الكَفِين" (al-wajha wal-kaffayn - the face and the hands). Yes, and that can't be the case because it says "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ" (illa ma thahara), it didn't say "إِلَّا مَا أَظْهَرْنَا" (illa ma azharna - except what we have made apparent). That's one important important point I want to mention again "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا" (illa ma thahara minha - except what is apparent thereof), that which becomes apparent from her beauty, the "زينة" (zeenah - adornment, beauty) is mentioned, okay? Now because I say "وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ" (wa la yubdina zinatahunna - and let them not display their beauty) "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا" (illa ma thahara minha - except what is apparent thereof), except that which becomes apparent from it. Now I looked at the word "زينة" (zeenah) in the Quran, okay? Because the Quran "يُفَسِّرُ بَعْضُهُ بَعْضَهُ" (yufassiru ba'duhu ba'da'hu - parts of it explain other parts). I went and looked at the Quran, I went when Quran through it, okay? I found that the view of Ibn Mas'ud is stronger than Ibn Abbas, and this is not "تَرْجِيحٌ بِغَيْرُ مُرَجَّحٍ" (tarjihun bi ghayri murajjah - preferring without a reason) because "ترجيح بغير مرجح يُسمى تحكم" (tarjihun bi ghayri murajjah yusamma tahakkum - preferring without a reason is called dictatorship). I'm not being dictator here, I just choose Ibn Mas'ud because he is in line with my view, no. I'm choosing Ibn Mas'ud because he's got two things that are supporting him: "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ" (illa ma thahara) supports Ibn Mas'ud. Second thing that supports Ibn Mas'ud is the word "زينة" (zeenah) that's used in the Quran. The word "زينة" (zeenah) in the Quran refers to the outer beauty, never... there's two beauties, there's the outer beauty and the inner beauty. The inner beauty is a woman's face, her body parts, that's her inner beauty, that's a beauty that doesn't detach itself from her. Like in the beauty which is "ظاهر" (thahir - apparent) is the outer beauty. The Quran speaks about beauty, the word "زينة" (zeenah) as always, generally speaking, the outer beauty.
قَالَ تَعَالَىٰ (Qala Ta'ala - Allah the Exalted said): "يَا بَنِي آدَمَ خُذُوا زِينَتَكُمْ عِنْدَ كُلِّ مَسْجِدٍ" (Ya Bani Adama khuzu zinatakum 'inda kulli masjidin - O children of Adam, take your adornment at every mosque). The word "زينة" (zeenah) here means cloth because of what the ayah came... that Ibn Abbas and he said the word "يَا بَنِي آدَمَ خُذُوا زِينَتَكُمْ" (Ya Bani Adama khuzu zinatakum) كان رجال يطوفون بالبيت عراتًا (kana rijalun yatufuna bil-bayti 'uratan - there were men who used to perform Tawaf around the House naked). "فَأَمَرَهُمُوا اللَّهُ" (Fa amarohumu Allahu - So Allah commanded them) "بِالزِّينَةُ وَالزِّينَةُ اللِّبَاسُ" (bil-zeenati wal-zeenatu al-libasu - with adornment, and the adornment is clothing). And the "زينة" (zeenah) they were told... they were naked, they used to go around the Ka'bah naked. So الله تبارك و تعالى (Allah Tabaraka wa Ta'ala - Blessed and Exalted is Allah) asks: "يَا بَنِي آدَمَ خُذُوا زِينَتَكُمْ" (Ya Bani Adama khuzu zinatakum) أي لباسكم (ay libasukum - meaning your clothing), take your clothing, okay? Also الله تبارك و تعالى (Allah Tabaraka wa Ta'ala) he said in the Quran: "قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ وَالطَّيِّبَاتُ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ" (Qul man harrama zeenata Allahi allati akhraja li-'ibadihi wat-tayyibatu minar-rizq - Say, "Who has forbidden the adornment of Allah which He has produced for His servants and the good [lawful] things of provision?"). 1 "زينة" (zeenah) here means clothing. Who can... who's the one who made haram (forbidden) the outer beauty? Come on, no one would make haram somebody's actual beauty. قَالَ تَعَالَىٰ (Qala Ta'ala - Allah the Exalted said): "وَمَا أُوتِيتُمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ فَمَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَزِينَتُهَا وَالْخَيْلَ وَالْبِغَالَ وَالْحَمِيرَ لِتَرْكَبُوهَا وَزِينَةً" (Wa ma uteetum min shay'in famata'ul-hayatid-dunya wa zeenatuha wal-khayla wal-bighala wal-hameera litarkabuha wa zeenah - And whatever you have been given is but [for] the enjoyment of worldly life and its adornment. And [He created] the horses, the mules and the donkeys for you to ride and [as] adornment). Allah mentions the horses, the mules, the donkeys. Allah mentions, why did He make it? So you can mount on it, "وزينة" (wa zeenah - and adornment), again it's outer beauty. قَالَ تَعَالَىٰ (Qala Ta'ala - Allah the Exalted said): "فَخَرَجَ عَلَى قَوْمِهِ فِي زِينَتِهِ" (Fa kharaja 'ala qawmihi fi zeenatih - So he came out to his people in his adornment). When Allah was talking about نبي الله موسى (Nabi Allah Musa - the Prophet of Allah Moses)... قارون (Qarun - Korah), sorry, when Allah was talking about Qarun, he said قَالَ تَعَالَىٰ (Qala Ta'ala): "فَخَرَجَ عَلَى قَوْمِهِ فِي زِينَتِهِ" (Fa kharaja 'ala qawmihi fi zeenatih) he came out with his beauty, his rich, his money, his wealth, outer beauty.
وَصَلَىٰ تَبَارَكَ تَعَالَىٰ (Wa Sala Tabaraka wa Ta'ala - And He, Blessed and Exalted, prayed) he says in another ayah in the same surah (chapter), An-Nur, Allah says: "وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرُهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ" (Wa la yadribna bikhumurihinna 'ala juyubihinna - and not strike their feet [in walking] so as to make known what they conceal of their adornment). Same ayah, no. Allah says: "وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ" (Wa la yadribna bi'arjulihinna liyu'lama ma yukhfina min zeenatihinna - And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment) in Surah An-Nur. Yeah, same ayah, same ayah we're talking about just towards the end of the ayah. Yeah, yeah, the end of the same ayah we're reading. Yeah, correct, you're right. "وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرُهِنَّ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ" (Wa la yadribna bikhumurihinna wa la yadribna bi'arjulihinna liyu'lama ma yukhfina min zeenatihinna). "مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ" (Ma yukhfina min zeenatihinna - what they conceal of their adornment) means what? What they're hiding from their beauty. It means the gold that the women used to put on their legs, when they walk and the sound that it makes, it'll catch the men's attention. So from there we take that the ayah is talking about what? Do not bring... don't do not make your "وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ" (wa la yubdina zinatahunna - and let them not display their adornment) do not make your beauties out "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا" (illa ma thahara minha - except what is apparent thereof), except that which happens to be what? In the open. So Allah is commanding the women to cover themselves, cover themselves fully. Ibn Mas'ud's goal seems strong. Okay, there's a third time the zina (adornment) is mentioned in the same ayah, okay? Just straight after like "وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُّوبِهِنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا" (Walyadribna bikhumurihinna 'ala juyubihinna wa la yubdina zinatahunna illa - And let them wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests, and let them not display their beauty except...) and then it gives the exceptions that you can reveal. This is also talking about clothing, this is also talking about clothing.
When Allah says, "don't expose your zina except to your fathers and your husbands," now we say that the beauty is two types, with the zahir (apparent) and the batin (hidden). Those two are mentioned in the Quran: zina which is zahira, the apparent, and the hidden beauty. So when you take off your clothes, that's a beauty Allah gave you سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala - Glorified and Exalted be He), all your body parts, all your limbs, it's a beauty. Your lihya (beard), your face, your eyebrows, your ears, your nose, everything, it's a beauty, it's a zina. But استعمال القرآن (isti'mal al-Qur'an - the usage in the Quran), when you look at the word zina, even though if you bring my eye here, there's no problem, but the overwhelming majority of the time عُرْفُ الْقُرْآنِ (urf al-Qur'an - the common understanding in the Quran), the way that the Quran refers to zina as the outer layer, something that a person uses to beautify themselves. But there are times where zina is also mentioned by the inner layer. We would say that I wouldn't, and of course, I mean so too. Nor, I'm 60 later on. This gives the exception for the elderly woman, she's able to expose her face, right? Yeah, she's allowed to. Yes. Okay, so what I'm trying to get at is just because the Quran in the majority of times zina refers to one thing, doesn't mean it always does, and that's important because this ayah... that's one thing that's worth noting. However, you do this to say something else, which is "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا" (illa ma thahara minha - except what is apparent thereof), and I think it's important. I don't want to get too technical in Arabic, but the difference between "ظَهَرَ" (thahara - appeared) and "أَذْهَرَ" (azhara - made apparent), for example, "ظَهَرَ" (thahara) is something that just kind of comes out without you intending it. "أَذْهَرَ" (azhara) is something that you intend to bring out and you're... and the reason why it's important is because you're saying the woman who wears a jilbab but without covering her face, she doesn't have a niqab, she intends that when she's in her house, she intends to not... she intends to show her face when she's in her house, she's getting ready, she wants to show her face before she goes out, and that's why you're saying "أَظْهَرْنَا" (azharna - we made apparent) was not used here, therefore it can't mean the face. And you mentioned Ibn Mas'ud was with you on this. That's one companion. However, as I'm sure you're aware, the other side who say that "إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا" (illa ma thahara minha) means the face and the hands, there's Ibn Abbas, there's Abdullah Ibn Umar (that's two companions here), there's Ataa Ibn Abi Rabaakh, there's Ikhlamah Al-Sa'id Ibn Jubair, which are very noble تابعين (tabi'een - successors) as well. They didn't see this in the Arabic language that you did. As I mentioned to you, the issue of Ibn Mas'ud رضي الله تعالى عنه (Radiya Allahu Ta'ala Anhu - May Allah be pleased with him) and Ibn Abbas and Ibn Umar, and as you mentioned العلامة محمد الأمين الشنقيطي (Al-'Allamah Muhammad al-Amin al-Shinqiti) has a qawl (saying) on the issue of Ibn Mas'ud و قول Ibn Abbas, he says: "أَظْهَرُ الْقَوْلَيْنِ" (azharul-qawlayn - the most apparent of the two sayings), those two views "المذكورين من عندي" (al-madhkurayn min 'indi - mentioned by me), he says "قَوْلُ ابْنِ مَسْعُودِ رضي الله تعالى عنه أن الزينة الظاهرة هي ما لا يستلزم النظر إليها رؤية شيء من بدن المرأة الأجنبية" (qawlu Ibni Mas'udin Radiya Allahu Ta'ala Anhu anna al-zeenata al-thahirata hiya ma la yastalzimu al-nathara ilayha ru'yata shay'in min badani al-mar'ati al-ajnabiyyah - the saying of Ibn Mas'ud, may Allah be pleased with him, is that the apparent adornment is that which does not necessitate looking at it to see anything of the body of a foreign woman), that the "زينة" (zeenah) which is "ظاهرة" (thahirah - apparent) "ما لا يستلزم النظر إليها" (ma la yastalzimu al-nathara ilayha - it is not something that necessitates a person to look at), okay? "وإنما قلنا هذا القول هو الأظهر" (Wa innama qulna hadha al-qawlu huwa al-azhar - And indeed, we say that this saying is the most apparent), the reason why we've chosen this view, he says, is because "لأنه هو أحوط الأقوال" (liannahu huwa ahwatu al-aqwal - because it is the most cautious of the sayings) "وأبعدها عن أسباب الفتنة" (wa ab'aduha 'an asbabi al-fitnah - and it is the most distant from the causes of fitna), okay? "وأضحروها لقلوب الرجال والنساء" (Wa adharuha liqulubi al-rijali wan-nisa' - and it is the purest for the hearts of men and women), and it's also the best at purifying the men and women's hearts. "ولا يخفى" (Wa la yakhfa - And it is not hidden) and also what is not hidden is "أن وجه المرأة هو أصل جمالها ورؤيته من أعظم أسباب الفتنة إليها" (anna wajha al-mar'ati huwa aslu jamaliha wa ru'yatuhu min a'zami asbabi al-fitnati ilayha - that the face of a woman is the origin of her beauty, and seeing it is one of the greatest causes of fitna towards her), and the face again is one of the greatest things that causes a woman's يعني فتنة (ya'ni fitnah - meaning temptation) for a woman, the face. Yeah, we agree with that. A woman can have every part of her body can be the most beautiful, if her man does not find her face attractive يعني (ya'ni - meaning) every single thing he will not look at. That's the first thing he wants to see first, that's where he determines. And it's... there are many men okay who'd marry a woman who doesn't have any other beauty anywhere else, just her face. Okay, so the thing that causes the greatest fitna for the Shari'a to dismiss that that is first of all and these are maqasid shari'a (objectives of Islamic law) by the way.
Yeah, but I think that's important to know because again, we're going back to the argument and this is normally tends to happen when people use these arguments is because they haven't got any sarikh (explicit) and dalil (evidence) from the Quran or the Sunnah. They actually have to bring the fitna argument, and it can easily be turned back on them and say that the most attractive part of a man to a woman is also his face, but it doesn't mean that a man has to cover his face. We would never use that and nobody's ever argued that. So this kind of argument, I need something on the Quran and Sunnah which of course that's what you're bringing and that's what we're here to discuss, but I don't like this relying solely on this argument alone. Scholars have looked at the statements of Ibn Abbas, they're Sahabahs (companions) by the way. This issue is not majority or minority. Ibn Umar as well, he says there's two companions here. Yeah, the issue is not about…
I don't remember the authenticity of Ibn Umar, I don't know, but I know Ibn Abbas and I know that is mentioned a lot. Ibn Umar, I don't remember the authenticity of it, so I'll suspend my agreement on that. But I do agree with you Ibn Abbas, it's true that he did say that, but I said to you, we can't just take it merely because of a companion saying it. That's not how you said it. I said to you, even you can challenge the statement, you can challenge the statement of a companion, but with another companion. I have here Ibn Mas'ud standing here and I have Ibn Abbas standing here. You're right, my heart is already automatically going to lead towards Ibn Abbas because he's Imamah (leader), his knowledge of the Tafsir of the Quran and the Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam made dua (supplication) for him as well. Ibn Abbas has a lenience, not even like just his students as well, like the whole the whole the movement of Ibn Abbas in Tafsir, I think we give our hearts more towards that. With that being said though, Ibn Mas'ud here has external evidences that support him. That's my point. Ibn Mas'ud has external points, the word zina being... you have any overwhelming parts of the Quran using it in that way, and that's the grounds that the scholars use to strengthen Ibn Mas'ud over Ibn Abbas.
They strengthen it on that particular ayah. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and who's an Imam in Tafsir, is there another way of taking not really saying that which is intentionally revealed and unintentionally revealed, but more also from the angle of that which is normally usually apparent? Like like you said at the time that these ayats were coming down, the women at that time did used to cover their did used to reveal their faces, right? That was the context of these ayats. Except what normally appears from you. Yeah, but that's except that which apart so then but then this this action of theirs of coming out of their houses and not wearing their face cover is something not that's what he did no. If you if you look at it from one angle which is the angle you're looking at which is intention they intended to reveal their face and the other one is they they didn't intend it just came out I agree with you but I'm saying dhahra in Arabic can also be used to say that which normally appears.
So for example at the time that this ayah was coming down normally the women were covered but they would have their face they didn't appear from their face they made it appear from their face that's my point they did I'm with you I'm with you but dhahra itself can also mean what normally appears as in this is the way you guys have found like this this what your custom is at this time at the time the ayah was revealed no means that which becomes apparent from her not what she makes apparent okay and that's where the powerful point again Ibn Taymiyya and he did push in the view of Ibn Mas'ud Radiallahu Ta'ala Anhu.
We have also Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali. Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali is a Imam, great Imam of the Hanbali Madhab, Imam al-Muhaqqiq (the verifying Imam) in his Kitab Fath al-Bari has a sharha (explanation) of Sahih al-Bukhari by the way, he called it Fath al-Bari and that was what inspired Ibn Hajar to call his Kitab Fath al-Bari as well. And what's shocking is that Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali didn't finish the explanation of Bukhari, he died at Kitab al-Janais, he died in the chapter of funeral. So he mentions: "وَقَدْ كَانَ قَبْلَ الْحِجَابِ" (Wa qad kana qabla al-hijabi - And indeed, it was before the hijab) "يُظْهِرْنَ بِغَيْرِ جِلْبَابِ" (yuthhirna bi ghayri jilbabin - the women would appear without a jilbab) "وَيَرَى مِنَ الْمَرْأَةِ وَجْهَدَ يُسِيْهَا فَيْسِ وَكَفَّهَا هَفْحَنْز وَكَانَ دَلِكَ مَا ظَهْرَ مِنْهَا مِنَ الزِّيْنَةِ" (wa yura mina al-mar'ati wajhada yusiha faysi wa kaffaha hafhanz wa kana dhalika ma thahara minha mina al-zeenati - and what was seen of a woman was her face, her hair, and her hands, and that was what used to appear of her adornment), they used to bring out in their beauty "وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِيْنَةُ إِلَىٰ مِنْهَا" (wa la yubdina zeenatu ila minha - and they do not display their adornment except what is apparent thereof), "ثُمَّ أُمِرَتْ دَيْنْشِ" (thumma umirat daynshi - then they were commanded) "بِسْتَتْلْ وَجْهِهَا وَكَفَيْهَا" (bistatl wajhiha wa kaffayha - to cover their faces and hands). محمد الامين الشقيقي I mentioned to you who is safer, both of them رب العباس (Rabbu al-Abbas - the Lord of Abbas), the issue is not about safety because even my side would be saying that you should cover, it's encouraging, but when you're making something obligatory it's not just about safety, you need a دليل (daleel - proof), you need "نفسوس الوحيين" (nufusu al-wahyayn - the essence of the two revelations), you can't just say it's safe therefore it's obligatory. Yeah, but this is Sharia, "الإبتعاد عن أسباب الفتنة" (al-ibti'adu 'an asbabi al-fitnah - staying away from the causes of temptation), is that not obligatory for a person to stay away from fitna? Okay, is it not obligatory? Yeah, it is.
Okay, is it not obligatory on a Muslim not to throw himself into destruction? Okay, yeah, no problem. So then wearing a niqab, so then tell a woman don't leave the house at all, not even for a ḥajjah (pilgrimage)? No, that doesn't cause fitna. Of course it causes fitna if she doesn't wear a hijab. No, it doesn't. Sorry, say that again. If she covers herself properly it doesn't cause fitna. It causes fitna when she leaves the house without a hijab, that could cause fitna. No, it doesn't.
Accidentally reveals from her body shape, that could cause fitna. Rare situations here or there, we're not talking about it. An ideal situation where women are covered. Akhi (my brother), I'll tell you something, I really hand experience and I know Insha'Allah many sisters are watching in Egypt, which is a bit of fitna that happens to women here and there. Egypt, may Allah protect our sisters whether they wear hijab or not, may Allah protect them.
May Allah protect our sisters whether they cover themselves or not, we don't want harm for anyone, we don't want harm for any sister, may Allah protect them from any harm, any injustice that's done towards them and it's never justified a man to rape a woman, it's never justified why a man would sexually assault a woman, may Allah protect our sisters. But I remember SubhanAllah (Glory be to Allah), a group of sisters who in Egypt went... you left the UK, they went to Egypt and they went there to study, okay? And SubhanAllah they mentioned, Wallahi (By Allah), I'm not talking about one or two or three, I'm talking about ample sisters, they said, look SubhanAllah when we go on the bus without a niqab, without gloves and everything, the guys in the bus get up for us and they let us sit here, Ya Sayyida (O noble lady), Sayyida, Sayyida, you know, they get up for that niqabi sister and let her sit down. Whenever a woman with jeans or something like that comes on, guess what they do? They all go next to her and they rub against her. May Allah protect our sisters. The point I'm trying to come to is that sisters say that to you, Wallahi I feel... I'm telling you this, I feel we're treated differently because of the way I'm covered. And no one's denying that, but to make something obligatory you need a daliyah from the Qur'an and not nice heartwarming stories or the opposite of heartwarming stories. The evidence were mentioned in this podcast, but this would also add on, we don't dismiss this point as well.
Because our religion, as Ibn Muhammad al-Amin al-Shanqiti who's an imam in MashaAllah إستدلال الدلائل الحجج (the evidence from the proofs), he mentioned this in his discussion as well. He brought it back home by pointing this out. After he mentioned all the points I mentioned, he mentions that 'أظهر القولين المذكورين عندي قول ابن مسعود' (the two strongest opinions mentioned are those of Ibn Mas’ud). The reason he said this is because 'لأنه هو أهدى الأقوال وأبعدها عن أسباب الفتنة وأظهرها لقلوب الرجال والنساء' (because it is the most correct opinion and the farthest from the causes of fitnah and the most apparent to the hearts of both men and women). And it is well-known that the face of a woman is the most beautiful part of her, and seeing it is one of the greatest causes of fitnah. His reasoning is a logical argument, that’s what I’m saying. By the way, he mentions all the دلائل (evidences) from the Qur'an and so on, which I did mention, like "يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ" (they should draw their jilbabs over them) and "وَإِذَا سَأَلْتُمُوهُنَّ مَتَاعًا فَسْأَلُوهُنَّ مِنْ وَرَاءِ حِجَابٍ" (and if you ask them for something, ask them from behind a veil). The woman is عورة (private and to be concealed), and "وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ" (and they should strike with their khimar over their chests).
Now, when he mentions these points, Muhammad ibn al-Shanqiti has two companions on either side, saying this companion's view is stronger because of logical reasons. He responded with evidence and mentioned all of those, including the word "زينة" (adornment) and so on. He mentions that Muhammad ibn al-Shanqiti’s argument, which I mentioned, has strong reasoning behind it. But to top that off, okay, because a lot of brothers and sisters who are watching might not understand these technical discussions that we’re having. So the point can be made clearer to them by referring to حديث النَّاسَ بِمَا يَعْرِفُونَ (speak to the people according to what they know) "تُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يُكَذِّبَكُمْ اللَّٰهُ وَرَسُولُهُ" (Do you want Allah and His Messenger to reject you?). We bring and drive the point home to them to understand that this opinion is the أبعد عن أسباب الفتنة (farthest from the causes of fitnah), and the أظهرها لقلوب الرجال والنساء (and most apparent to the hearts of men and women).
Okay, that’s fair. Do you want to move on to the rest of the ayah? وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ (And they should strike with their khimar over their chests). Can you translate that into English to the actual translation?
So, they strike the خمار (headscarf), which I’ll keep untranslated for now, and they put the خمار (headscarf) over the جيوب (chests). Again, the plural of جيب (chest), but I want to keep the Arabic because that's going to be part of the discussion. It’s like from here, which we’d agree on that, right? The جيب is like even out of pocket, like this kind of shape. So, from here and the خمار (headscarf) is the headscarf.
Yeah, now I can go ahead. That’s why I didn’t want to do it earlier. Okay, the word خمار (khimar) is singular. The plural is خُمُر (khumur), which is the plural. So, the word is خمار (khimar), which is one. خُمُر (khumur) is the plural. And it’s taken from the word الخمر (al-khamr). Okay, that’s why I get scared. It’s taken from the word الخمر (al-khamr), and الخمر (al-khamr) means... okay, that’s why we use the word, so let’s keep it in English to mean "to conceal" and "to cover."
Okay, so we agree that the word خمار (khimar) is to conceal. It’s to conceal. I’m with you on that so far. You have to give me an exception of why the face and hands are out of that because خمار (khimar) in a general sense, no? We already agreed that the word خمار (khimar) means to conceal. I’m not trying to get out of it. Don’t worry, I’m sitting right here. It means to conceal, to cover. Yeah, الخمر (khamr), what does it do? It conceals a person’s mind entirely; they can’t consciously think. No problem, okay? So we say خمار (khimar) means "to conceal" and "to hide." That’s why we use it — it covers the brain and the mind of the person. It’s what the woman covers — her hair, her face, her neck, and her chest.
Do you believe that خمار (khimar) covers the feet? What do you mean? Do you believe the خمار (khimar) in a default sense includes covering the toes? No, it doesn’t, right? So that’s what I’m saying. We agree it covers, but the word itself means "to cover." It doesn’t mean to cover the face. You’re adding that. No, but that’s the reason I’m saying it’s in close proximity. The region in which the neck is... yeah, no problem, I’m with you. It should cover, but look, okay, sorry.
So the word خمار (khimar) is to cover the face and the head according to you. Yeah, you say something? Finish.
جزاكم الله خير (Jazakum Allah Khair). What I’m saying is we agree in the language that the word خمار (khimar) means "to cover" something. We both agree on that. Now, we’re discussing what it covers. You’re saying it covers, and Allah even said to make it cover from the خمار (khimar) to the جيوب (jaib) as well, which is this area. So, we agree that it must cover this area. So far, we’re here. But the head as well? So far, yeah? We’ll come to that. I’m just saying what we definitely agree on right now. So that’s two things: we agree that it means "to cover" and we agree that it must cover this area because Allah specifically mentioned the جيوب (jaib). So, a neck or... yeah, no problem. We agree.
Is the neck in there? Yeah, we can put it in there. Where’s the جيوب (jaib)?
I’m not sure if جيوب (jaib) is a blossom, okay, let’s keep it here then — not the neck. I’m keeping what Allah has only affirmed, and I only negate what Allah has negated. The third thing that we agree on is that it covers the head. Okay, we agree on that? Yeah, we agree on the head.
Okay, my argument is that the خمار (khimar), when it’s not qualified, when it’s just in its default position, is referring to a head cover. And the reason I’m saying that is because we have two ahadith that prove that. The first one is... is that right? I can’t remember the wording, and I don’t want to get that wrong. So, the Prophet ﷺ is saying he did مسح (mas’h) like when you're doing wudu (ablution), you wipe over it.
Okay, so now the خُفَّين (khuffayn) are the socks. Can I look at the exact wording? Yeah, sure, to track my memory. Just don’t look at the rest of my notes. Okay, you can see it here. Huh?
Okay, so the خُفَّين (khuffayn) are the socks, خمار (khimar) is the head cover. If you mean, if you say the خمار (khimar) by default covers the face as well, are you saying the Prophet ﷺ did wipe over his face, like a نقاب (niqab) and he wiped over it? Okay, I don’t agree with that.
Okay, so the word خمار (khimar), you’re saying that it’s only restricted to that which is not just restricted — I’m saying this default sense, the default is the head cover. By default, it’s the head cover. There are other times we could use it for the face; I’m not denying that. Okay, I’m saying to you, it’s beautiful.
So let’s agree, okay, that the word خمار (khimar) is what covers the head. Okay? And then after that, what do we say? Over the... let’s say this area. How do you cover it over the face like that? You have many sisters who put it like this, and they put it around like this. And in fact, the fact that Allah specifically didn’t mention it, he actually left out the face intentionally.
Okay, let me give you the kalam (statement) of a bona fide Imam, okay? He died the year 728 Hijri. He said three things: he said it has covered by default. Okay, so the purpose is, let’s go into this shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. He says the reason is because the head is where it starts from, and the blossom is where it goes to — ends. Everything in between needs to be covered. That’s his kalam (statement).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah’s kalam (statement) is that, okay? Also, there’s a hadith that supports it. Okay? You have to bring all the narrations together. Your narration, mashallah, just shows that the khimar is on their head and the Prophet ﷺ wiped over it. It doesn’t mention... it doesn’t mention that the face can’t be covered.
No, I’m with you on that. I’m saying the default is that it’s on the head. You have to bring the evidence that the face is covered. That’s where we’re at now. So, the hadith just mentions that the khimar is on the hair. You can wipe it off, no problem. You can refer to it, so we agree by default it doesn’t cover the face. That’s important.
No, it depends who the burden of proof is. If we say the default... no, we’re referring to this ayah (verse) specifically.
Okay, we’re not referring to the word خمار (khimar) generally speaking. We’re saying وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ (wa li-yadribna bi khumurihinna). It means هي شرعًا (hiya shara'an), meaning based on this ayah (verse) that the word خمار (khimar) means ما تغطي به المرأة رأسها ووجهها و عنقها و جيبها (what the woman covers with, her head, face, neck, and chest). And the burden of proof is on you for that. I’m going to prove that.
Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullahu ta'ala) mentioned that in his Bajmur al-Fatha, the 22nd volume, page 76. He says, look, there’s a hadith. He said, "We used to do khimar on our faces." Why else would we do it? Malik narrated that in his Muwatta and Hakim in his Mustadrak. He authenticated it. Rahimahullah.
We go back to his explanations of the ayat (verses) and the ahadith in Bukhari. Bukhari said the khimar covers the woman’s face. He says the Arabs used to use it like that. The pre-Arabs used to use it like that, and we go to their poetry. Not always though, because we’ve just put the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ.
There’s another hadith — the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ just mentioned that the Prophet ﷺ was wearing the khimar, wiping over the khimar. But we know he didn’t wipe over his face. He didn’t have anything covering his face. We know that.
But by the way, you do believe that you don’t have to wipe over your entire... you know, according to the fuqaha (jurists), you don’t have to wipe over your head in its entirety. You can wipe over some of your hair and finish the rest on the khimar. No problem, no problem. So, that just shows that the Prophet ﷺ wiped on part of the khimar, not all of it.
Okay, even if you say that, you would never, ever say that... what I’m trying to get at: you would never say that the Prophet ﷺ actually had a face cover and wiped over his face cover. You wouldn’t say that, would you?
What do you mean? You would never say that this hadith — the one with the Prophet ﷺ doing mas’h (wiping) over his khimar — you would never say that the khimar is a face cover and he wiped over it. You wouldn’t claim that, would you?
No, no. You wouldn’t. You would never say that. So, by default, according to this hadith and another one, لَا يَقْبَلُ اللَّـهُ صَلَاةَ حَائِضٍ إِنَّا بِخِمَارٍ (laa yaqbulu allahu salata ha’idin inna bi khimarin), that Allah doesn’t accept the prayer unless it’s covered. But you understood that the word khimar here doesn’t cover the face for the Prophet ﷺ because men don’t cover their faces. That’s a point that you and I both agree on.
The women’s prayer as well... No, we’re not saying that. You’re saying that the women can’t — they do cover their faces. Araft? In what? In the prayer?
No, generally speaking, women do cover... no, this one. This hadith — I’m going one after the other. Okay, this hadith, put it here for me. Which hadith?
The Prophet ﷺ wiped over it. You and I both here really know that the Prophet’s face will never show; they’ll never be covered, yeah? Araft? The Prophet’s face will never be covered because that’s not what the men do. Men don’t cover their faces. Correct?
By the way, there are some statements that scholars mention about men covering their faces. There’s fitnah (temptation), but we’re not going to go into that.
Okay, so we know the Prophet ﷺ by default, you and I, that he’s not — صلى الله عليه وسلم — gonna cover his face. But he did wear a khimar. So, he wore the khimar. We’ve taken out the face from the khimar because of what we know about a man not wearing a khimar. I’m saying it’s different. I’m saying it’s the other way around.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying to you, the khimar originally covers the face, it covers the hair, the neck, and the chest, everything. But the reason why we said, okay, the Prophet ﷺ is yaani (i.e. a male), and we know men don’t cover their faces — that’s why I’m taking out the face from it. So, the second hadith, لا يقبل الله صلاة حائضٍ إلا بخمارٍ (laa yaqbalallahu sallata khaidin illa bi khimarin), Allah does not accept the prayer of an adult woman unless she’s wearing a khimar... You’re saying by default that means covering the head, the face, everything, the chest, everything. Okay, you’re saying that by default, that’s what it means.
Yeah, so again, I’m saying to you, this isti'mal (usage) of the word khimar here means اللغتنا (in the linguistic sense), unless she can’t... it’s a shar'an (legal or religious) hadith. Yes, it is, it is, it is. But sometimes Allah uses linguistic usages. Okay, let me just give you an example: Allah Tabarak wa Ta'ala said in the Qur’an: وَلَا تُصَلِّ عَلَىٰ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ مَّا تَبَدَّ (wa la tusalli ala ahadin minhum mati abadan wa la takum ala qabri). And it means the linguistic meaning. It doesn’t mean the shar'a meaning. Okay? It means the dua (supplication). وَلَا تُصَلِّ عَلَىٰ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ وَوَلَا تَدْعُو لَهُمْ (wa la tusalli ala ahadin minhum wa la tad'u lahum), don’t make dua for the non-Muslims. Okay? So, it does happen sometimes that the shari'ah uses the linguistic meaning.
But the default is not that. We agree that the default in hadith and the ayat of the Qur’an is the shara'an meaning of the word. So there’s an exception, right? Yeah, but we agree the default is that. So here we’re saying that this exception here is that we need to al jam'u wajibul mata maa amkana illa falil akhiri nasqin buyina, we need to bring the texts together.
I have the hadith of Fatima bint al-Mudhir, who is saying, "We used to cover our faces with our khimar," which shows that the khimar can cover the face. I’ve never said it can’t cover the face ever, abadan (never). I’m not saying that. Also, you believe that khimar can? Okay, Shaykh Nasir is saying, does it? No, I’m saying it can.
Okay, this hadith I’m going to flip on you now — the hadith of what the Prophet ﷺ mentions that the woman who’s reached her age of puberty, that she has to pray with a khimar. Okay, how do you know which one is whether she covers her face here or not? The default is that it’s a head covering.
No, it’s not. That’s in the language. No, it’s not. I’ll give you statements from one line of poetry. Okay, go ahead. Noorul khimari wa noorul khaddiki tahtahu ajaban li wajhika kayfa lam yatalahabi. Here he says qul lil malihati fil khimari al mudhhabi. We have the word khimari, and then he says noorul khimari wa noorul khaddiki — the cheek underneath the khimar, ajaban li wajhika — fascination is your face, kayfa yatalahabu — how it glows. So he described that the khimar was on her face. It’s on her face. No, I mean, this is Arabic language. Yeah, I’m not saying it can’t be.
So, what my point is... my point is that look, Aisha (radiallahu anha), she said in a hadith, "Yarhamu Allahu nisa al-muhajirat..." May Allah have mercy upon the women of the muhajirun. She said, "Rahim Allahu nisa al-muhajirat al-awwal, lamma anzal Allahu..." When Allah sent down وَلِيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ (wa li yadribna bi khumurihinna ala juyubihinna), she said "Shaqqaqna murutahuna" — they ripped their cloths, yeah? Faqhtamarna biha — they covered themselves with it. Faqhtamarna. Hafidh bin Hajar said, "Ay ghattayna wujuhahuna" — we covered our faces.
I’m not interested in Hafidh bin Hajar and Ibn Taymiyyah, he said... Wasifatu dhalika an tada al khimara ala raasiha — she placed the khimar on her head, and wa tarmihi mina al janibi — from the side, on the right and left. Ala al aymani al atiqi al aysari wa huwa al taqannu — she covers her face like that. That’s what he says.
Let me read you some statements here and see what you make of them. So, the first is that the khimar is like the imamah (head covering). The man covers his head with it, and just as a woman covers her head with her khimar. But you’re not denying that she can cover the head.
You’re saying the face is included as well, that’s what you’re saying, right? Okay, based on the ayat, so this is what the scholars, with their varying specialties, were upon, from the people of tafsir, hadith, fiqh, and the language from the early and later times. This is Sheikh Nasir in his book, either Ar-Rad al-Mufim or Al-Barb al-Marath al-Muslimah — he’s the kalam al khasr man (he’s on the other side, part of the discussion). Of course, Sheikh Al-Sami was also on your side, like there’s always, you have to be on one side or the other. It has been made easy for me to come across words from more than 40 of them, I mentioned the statement in my research, so you can see them in his book. I gathered them all, stating the head and not the face when defining the khimar. He’s mentioned Ibn Julay, Al-Tabari, Al-Baghawi, Al-Zamakhshari. These are people of tafsir. Ibn al-Arabi, Ibn al-Taymiyyah — he even puts in here as well, scholars of hadith like Ibn al-Khazim, Al-Baji. He’s got 40 different scholars from all different disciplines who say that the khimar is covering the head and not the face. We’re not talking about this ayah, by the way. This ayah is a different discussion.
Sheikh Nasir, the issue of the discussion — I’ll be fair, I’ve read his book ample times, you know, I’ve read it more than 10 times. And just for this podcast, I read it twice. I downloaded it, I read it. I don’t have the copies in my library in the UK, but I downloaded it, and I read it. And I also read his Jilbab al-Mar'at al-Muslimah at once, and you’ve explained it as well, it’s online on YouTube. Sheikh Nasir’s usage of the kalam of these 40 imams I told you this before, and it’s important you point it out. Is their awrah for salah or the awrah to another? The awrah to satri, sorry. You have to understand this issue, habibi (my dear), the awrah that Sheikh Nasir means, where he calls these imams from, is when they’re in bay’a (contracts), when they’re buying and they’re selling. Some of the fuqaha (jurists) say she has to show her face so the man selling or buying from her can see her face in order to identify her, or when she’s getting married, the guy can see her face. If you take the kalam of these imams, and they speak about khimar in their ‘alim and he’s wrong, we’re talking about because they themselves, some of the scholars that he met, Ibn Jalil, I saw the line of Ibn Zaymiyya, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibn Jalil, all they believe in the ka’abah’s wajib. Yeah, but it doesn’t mean that they believe the khimar covers the face. They could have a different belief. To believe in the ka’abah’s wajib, I just mentioned the kalam of Shaykh Al-Islam Taymiyyah already: al-khumuru huya lati tughati al-ras wal-wajih wal-unuq. See this Majmu' al-Fatawa, the 22nd volume, page 76.
And there’s a difference when he mentions it generally speaking in a fiqh book. Okay, like, for example, in the salah. If you ask, you just asked me now. You just said to me, the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ, if the woman reaches her age of puberty, that the salah is except with the khimar, of course, I would say to you, it’s only the head, not the face. But you’re saying that’s not the default usage of the word? Exactly. There’s the chapter the Imam is speaking in, that’s why Muhammad al-Amin al-Shanqiyati, and I praise the honor of many sons of Ibn al-Hajar, Muhammad al-Amin al-Shanqiyati said — and this hadith is correct and clear in that the women of the companions mentioned in it, we understood that the meaning of his saying that is the statement of Allah, who may Allah have mercy upon us with khumurina on their chests. Who cut off six of our faces, the faces? This is the one that’s going to really get to you as well, which is you said that they take it and they put it around, why would they rip it then? What does it mean we broke it? When they say we broke it, they ripped it. They ripped it from where? From the top? No, they ripped it from their cloths, from the middle of their cloths because they weren’t wearing their khimar. Sorry, this is before the ayah came down, right? And this is how they reacted to the ayah.
Let me get it here, because it says shaqqaqna, they cut it. They cut their edges, their waist sheets. Why did they cut it? And then after Aisha said faq tamarna, they used those parts for something. What they used it for is satul wujuhahina, to cover their face. They used that part to cover their faces with it, as a khimar, imti ta’ala li amri Allahi ta’ala. Obviously, one thing that has to be made clear as well is that the side, on my side of the table, who believe that the niqab is mustahabb (highly recommended), we encourage the sisters to wear it. Just because you have statements of Aisha.
This one works against you.
Because the ayah says, waliyadhribna (and let them strike), waliyadhribna is an amr (command). An amr shows obligation. And then Aisha said they understood the amr like this. I’m not just mentioning a statement, but I do want to point something out, which this ignorant mufti who doesn’t really have a basic understanding of the religion, Ibn Muhammad ibn al-Shakriti, responded to him here. He said: "Fal ajabu kulla al-ajabi" (I’m fascinated). He said, Muhammad ibn al-Shakriti, it’s true, something to be fascinated with, mimman yadda’i min al-muntasibila li al-ilmus (the person who claims to be from the people of knowledge) who says anaw lam yarid fil kitabi walas sunnah (there’s no evidence in the Book or the Sunnah) ma yadullu ala satil al-mar'ati wajhaha (that the woman covers her face from the foreign men). Ma anna al-sahabiyat (Rather, the minimum we can at least say is that the Sahabiyat did this). They did this to follow the commandments of Allah, following the revelation.
I mean, the fact that, put aside if it’s wajib (obligatory) or not for now, but this shows us. Look, may Allah have mercy upon the women of the Ansar, Muhajireen (sorry, the early ones), do you know that the Muhajireen are more virtuous than the Ansar? Because every place in the Qur'an Allah starts with them first. The ten promised Jannah (Paradise), by the way, all of them are Muhajireen, not one of them is Ansari. They are, Aisha may Allah have mercy upon them. When Allah sent down the ayah: wal yadribna bi khumreena ala juyubihina (and let them strike their khumur on their chests), she said: shiqaqna murutahuna faqhtamarna biha (they ripped their garments and covered themselves with it).
Now, it’s fascinating. Ya Hani, it’s fascinating, and Aisha left it general. Wallahi, it’s a person who claims knowledge and says, “I am a person, I’m a mufti,” that title should be stripped from that person who says this is a Wahabi practice, when the Muhajireen were doing this. But when she says faqhtamarna biha (they covered themselves with it), she mentioned the faces after that. I think you brought a statement after that where she specified the face. Aisha didn’t mention the face. No, she didn’t. It’s just faqhtamarna biha (they covered themselves with it). So, it goes back to the issue of what did the khimar actually cover in its default ruling. But the faqhtamarna biha shows something very solid. The kalam (speech) you have to understand in the context that it’s in: shiqaqna murutahuna (they ripped their garments) and then faqhtamarna biha (they did the khimar on it). The khimar wasn’t done before that, so after they cut it all up, they did it. And then we have Ibn Hajar — Imam, where is the Wahabi got to do with it? Ibn Hajar was way before all of that, and he mentions that faqhtamarna biha. Ibn Hajar says: ayy gattayna wujuhahuna (meaning, they covered their faces). He says, wasifatu dhalika an tadaa al khimar ala rasihah watarmihi mina al janib al aymani ila al atik al aysari wahuwa ttaqannu’i (It’s described that the khimar is put over the head and then draped over the face).
He’s saying: Amin al-Shakitiyu, who was wrong, rahim allama Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymin, who died in the year 1421 Hijriyah, says: "If a woman is commanded to cover her chest with the khimar, she is also commanded to cover her face." Why? Because Ibn Uthaymin is very strong. He says: "Lazimu dhalika" (This is necessary), because if you're bringing it down from here (the head) to there (the chest), why would you go around? The Shari'ah would mention the face as an exception here. Not to mention you already agreed that the women at that time, their faces were showing, so it would have made sense to say: "Keep your face the way it is."
Okay, what's your next proof? My next proof is the ayah: wal yadribna bi arjulihina li yu'lama ma yukhfeena min zinatihina (and let them strike their legs so that what they conceal of their adornment may be known). So, this is the same ayah, towards the end of the ayah. Ibn Katheer says: kanatil mar’atu fil jahiliyah (the woman in the times of ignorance) idha kanat tamshi fil tariq (when she would walk in the street), wa fee rijleyhah khalqalun (and she was wearing those bangles or something), samitu la yusma’u sawtuhu (it couldn’t be heard), darabat bi arjulihah (she would strike her leg on the ground so it would make a noise).
Fa ya'lamal rijalu tanina tun (so the men could know the sound that she’s making). Fa nahal laahu al mu’minati a'mithli dhalika (Allah prohibited the believing women from doing this). Is this haram for women to do this? Yes, haram. Why is it haram? Because Allah prohibited it. But why did Allah? What’s the wisdom behind it? The wisdom is to draw attention to them. The face is greater than that. But we always go back to this, this is qiyas (analogy). Qiyas is a chapter in our religion, you can’t deny that. If a woman is prohibited from making noise with her bangles, what about if a woman is so beautiful she’s walking on the street? Every sister is beautiful in her way. Some might apply on it, because every sister, she’s got men that would find her attractive, even a slave.
I don’t agree with this. You can’t say, “every sister is generally found attractive,” so she walks, and noise is prohibited. It’s da’eed (too much) for you to say anything other than that. Yeah, these logical arguments, we’ve covered them many times and they keep coming up. So, what’s the next proof, insha’Allah?
This ayah is from Surah An-Nur, ayah 60. Yes, Ibn Jalil At-Tabari, he mentions in the tafsir of this ayah, he says this is referring to this woman who can no longer have children because she’s aged. This woman, there’s no harm upon this woman if they take off their thiyab (clothes). You are in trouble if you say this is not the niqab and the gloves. Do you mean that she’s going to take off her clothes? What clothes would she take off? Do you believe here, because Ibn Jalil says it was the cloth that was placed on top of the khimar, the cloth that was placed on top of the khimar, the cover that used to cover herself from the top with her face and hands and everything. The Shari'ah is now telling her to take it easy.
The evidence to show you that specifically the niqab and the gloves as well is there’s a woman by the name of Hafsa bint Sirin. She was Muhammad bin Sirin’s sister. She died in the 28th year of the Hijriya.
Okay, Hafsa bint Sirin And it was mentioned We used to enter on Asim al-Ahwal who died in 141 Hijriya He said we used to enter on Hafsa, we used to enter upon Hafsa bint Sirin She took the jilbab and covered her face with it May Allah have mercy upon you That's what they said to her And when they read the ayah, they said This is referring to the jilbab She would say to us she would say to them, she would say sorry, ayyu shay'in ba'da dhaliq, and after that, ya'ni after that part of the ayah, carry on. Ya'ni when they stopped at the, ayyi dha'ana thiyabahuna ghayra mutabarrijaatim bi zina she said, and after that, carry on the verse. Wa ayyastahfifna khayrullahuna What is better for them is to be just.
So she kept her niqab on for that reason. So she kept her niqab on because of that part of the last part of the verse. She was a alima.
So from this, it permitted this person, from this ayah, it allowed the women who are senior, senile, old women, to take off their clothing. Hiyam means kashful wajhi, their faces, and their hands of course, without any beautification. They can't beautify themselves.
But it doesn't hiyam mean that she can cover, uncover her hair. Wa hadha ijma'a, jassas transmitted that ijma'a. Ibn Hazm transmitted that ijma'a.
And other than them, a woman, however old she is, she can't show her hair. Okay, mahma balagha sinuwa, however old she is. Okay, so, mafoomul mukhaalafa, we spoke about, which is a reverse understanding.
If the women who are old, Allah is saying, now you can uncover your faces. What does it show? Of course, mafoomul mukhaalafa, which is, anna ghayra nisa'il kabirat, the women who are not senior in age, too old, which are the shaabat amina nisa', they are ma'murat bil hijab, wasatri wajh. It's a very strong argument.
And the ayah for people at home is 24, surah number 24, ayah number 60. It's a very strong argument. So now insha'Allah wa ta'ala, I just wanna mention the last and final verse to support the obligation of the woman covering her face.
ya'ani wujubun niqab. I mentioned there's gonna be seven evidences from the Quran. So this is my last evidence from the Quran.
Qala ta'ala Allah says in the Quran, waqarna fee buyootikunna wala tabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati aloola wa aqimna as-salata wa ateena az-zakata wa a'ti'na Allah wa rasoola Allah mentions to the believing women. Allah says waqarna fee buyootikunna, stay in your houses. wala tabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati aloola What does the word tabarruj mean? Ibn Manzoor has a book called Lisan al-Arab.
Okay. Ibn Manzoor, he died the year 811. And his book is a dictionary.
We go back to it, Lisan al-Arab. He's not the only one who said that, by the way. You can find late Ibn Sa'd mentioned it.
You can find his statement in Kitab Bahl al-Muhyid. And Aymat al-Lugha mentioned this. Ibn Manzoor said, wa tabarruj idhhaaru almar'ati zinataha wa mahasinaha lidrijali wa tabarrajatil mar'atu adhharat wajhaha wa idha abdatil mar'atu mahasina jidiha wa wajhiha qila tabarrajat He says that tabarruj is that the woman brings out in the open her beauty.
The mahasin Allah gave her, the beautiful things Allah gave her. She shows it to what? Lidrijali. wa tabarrajatil mar'atu When the Arabs they say that, means adhharat wajhaha.
She has brought her face out in the open. wa idha abdatil mar'atu mahasina jidiha wa wajhiha When the woman brings out her face, I mean her body parts like that. They say, tabarrajat.
Tabarrajat. So when the ayah says, wa kharna fee buyutukuna wa la tabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyati aloola It means don't bring out your faces. That's what Allah is prohibiting them from.
And later Ibn Sa'ad, the faqih, the great scholar, he meant who died in 175 Hijriya. He said, tabarrajatil mar'at idha abdatil mahasina min wajhiha wa jasadiha That the word tabarrajatil mar'at means if she brings out in the open, you know, mahasinaha, her beauty, min wajhiha wa jasadiha, her face and her hands. Shaykh Shuyukhina, the shaykh of our shaykhs, Shaykh Ibn Ubaid, rahimahullah ta'ala, he mentions, he says, fassara al'ulamaa, the scholars have explained.
Tabarruj means, bi annahu idhhaarul mahasin wal mafatini min sadriha The chest, then her beauty like that. min anuqihaha, her neck. min udhunayhaha, her ears.
huriyaha wa shaariha wa anahu idhaarik, wa haa kadhal wajh And who is in the face? And then he went on to say what he said. So, that ayah is also another ayah to support the obligation of women covering their faces, being obligatory now. Okay, you brought some very strong arguments from the Quran itself.
Seven arguments in total from I think around five different ayahs. Some of them have multiple arguments in there. We're now gonna move on to your other arguments, I assume from the sunnah.
And bear in mind that this conversation is obviously your arguments that you're bringing forward. The second half of the conversation will be arguments from my side coming forward as well. So, let's move on to the sunnah inshallah.
Inshallah ta'ala. So, the adillah from the sunnah that show wujubu taghtiyatu wajhil mar'a that the woman has to cover her face is muta'dida, are many. Those which are sareeha and saheeha are eight.
These eight are going to be sareeha and saheeha, directly to the point. Okay. And they're gonna be authentic inshallah ta'ala.
It's not gonna be something you're gonna dispute is authenticity. Number one is hadith Ibn Umar, radiallahu ta'ala anhuma, the hadith found in Bukhari, where the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, he said, la tantaqibu almar'atu walmuhrimah wala talbizu alquffa zayni. The Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, he mentions, la tantaqibu almar'atu, the woman does not wear niqab, the one woman, when she does, in the state of ihram, wala talbazu alquffa zayni, and she doesn't also wear gloves.
The woman in the state, the woman in ihram. So the niqab is a cover that you place on your face, which only the two eyes of the person becomes out in the open. And what I'm trying to take from this hadith is, what would delala from the hadith, the way I'm trying to use this hadith is, that the adah, the nooms of the women, in other than ihram, was to wear niqab and gloves.
Shaykh al-Islam al-Taymiyyah, rahimahullah, he said, wahada mimma yadullu ala anna al-niqaba wal-quffa zayni kana ma'rufayni fin nisa'i allati lam yuhrimna wa dhalika yaqtadi satru wujuhihina wa aydihuna. Ibn al-Taymiyyah, rahimahullah, with hadith 728 hijriyah, he says this shows that the niqab and the gloves, they were both known in the women that were not doing umrah or hajj. And then he said, wa dhalika, and this shows, yaqtadi satru wujuhihina, that they have to cover their faces and their two hands.
Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi al-Maliki, who died in year 543, before Shaykh al-Islam al-Taymiyyah, he said, wala tantaqibu al-mar'atu that the woman does not wear niqab, wa dhalika lianna satraha because that is because her covering wajhaha bil burqi, covering with the niqab, is fardun, is obligatory, illa fil hajj, except in hajj, fa inna turkhi shay'an min khimariha ala wajhaha ghayru lasiqin bihi. Because to wear the niqab is obligatory outside hajj. Okay.
But inside hajj, all that's required from her is that the man goes by her, for her to cover her face, with the khimar, which is not the niqab, he's saying, because it's covered, it's connected to it, where she just lets it go. Drops that one, wa tu'uridhu anirrijali wa tu'uridhuuna anana. The man turn away from her, Shaykh Ibn Ubaidah, rahimahullah, he said, this hadith is also an evidence to show the obligation of the niqab.
So Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah who used this to show, we saw Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi al-Maliki, who mentioned it, and Shaykh Ibn Ubaidah, and many other great scholars, rahimahullah, may Allah be pleased with each and every one of them. So the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, said that the woman in a state of ikhram is not allowed to wear the niqab. From that, you got that there's an obligation to wear niqab outside of that, and you quoted some scholars that support you in that as well.
I'm trying to understand where that's coming from, because we know that when the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, forbids things in the state of ikhram, it just means that it's permissible outside of ikhram, or it's known, or maybe it's encouraged, we could even say. But there are many things, for example, wearing perfume, a man covering his head, he's not allowed to do that in ikhram. Does that mean now that it's wajib for him outside of ikhram? So, the women wearing niqab outside, something that was what they did.
Which we both agree is known at the time, yeah. But where do you get an obligation from? The fact that they are told not to do it now, they're prohibited from it, they're told to stay away from the niqab. Okay, and men are told not to wear something on their head in ikhram, right? Men and women are not allowed to wear scented perfume or anything like that.
Nobody's disputing whether the scent is obligatory. Exactly. It's in the first place, it's not aslam, it's not niqash, it's wajib.
No problem. So, I'm saying if niqab is mustahab, for example, niqab is recommended, then why does it have to, why does it show that it's obligation? Just because there's a dispute going on, it doesn't mean there's a little strong in that. Your point is strong here, to be honest, really strong, the hadith by itself doesn't show the obligation, you're right.
And I agree with you on that. That it's far-fetched to just use this hadith by itself. The reason I'm saying is that if you took the other external evidences that I brought, this is now saying to you, since it was wajib on you to wear niqab outside hajj, now that hajj has entered, you can't wear niqab.
Still have to cover your faces, but just not wear the niqab. Okay, so let's keep that, this one to one side. The other external evidences, we've already gone through them.
However, now that you brought this one up, it does raise the question that a woman, the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, says she can't wear niqab in a state of ikhlaan, when obviously the men's hearts are meant to be the most pure in this place, in ikhlaan. You're saying that she still has to cover her face, though. Are there any scholars who said that she doesn't have to cover her face, who still believe niqab is wajib? In state of ikhlaan, right? Like in umrah, she has to cover her face.
Not that I can remember, personally. Right now, I might not recall it. Okay, so a woman, even in ikhlaan, when she's going to umrah, hajj, she has to cover her face, but she can't use the niqab.
What should she use instead? Covering the face is obligatory for women. Hajj or outside hajj. But the difference is that niqab is a type of face covering that's not allowed in hajj for women.
So she just has to still cover herself by other means, by other ways. Okay. Okay, what's your next deliverance from the sunnah? The hadith I mentioned, hadithatul ifk.
The situation of ifk, Bukhari and Muslim both narrated it. Aisha said, fa baynama ana jarisatun fee manziri ghalabatni ayni fa nimtu Whilst I was sitting in my house, tiredness overcame me and I slept. Wakana Safwani ibn Mu'attal As-Sulami Safwani ibn Mu'attal As-Sulami is a noble companion.
He was from the people, he's As-Sulamiyyu thumma thukwaniyyu. He's from that particular tribe. He is a man who is known to come after the army.
Aisha mentions it. Radiyallahu ta'ala, she said, mim warai il-jayshi He comes from behind the army. When the army leave, he comes and he collects everything.
So, Aisha is left behind. He comes back. He finds that the wife of the Prophet is here.
Everybody else is gone. The wife of the Prophet is here. Fa asbah a'inda manziri fa ra'a sawada insani na'imin He saw a pitch dark person sleeping there from far.
He saw some dark thing over there. So he came to close. Fa arafani He recognized me when he saw me.
Wakana ra'ani qabla al-hijab He knew me before ayat al-hijab came down. Showing you ayat al-hijab was where the niqab came from. Fa istiqa'tu She said, I woke up.
Bisti rija'ihi Based on his inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un I mentioned that before. Then Aisha radiyallahu ta'ala She said, fa khammartu wajhi bi jilbabi I then placed the jilbab over my face. When he came, she covered her face straight away.
The word fa khammartu It means, I ghattaytu wajhi bi jilbabi So I took the thawb and she covered her face. Safir Rahman Mubarakafuri In Sharh Tuhfatul Ahwadi He says, fa hadhal hadithu nassun By the way, the word nassun means clay cut. It means sariyah It means la yahtamelu ta'weeli It has no interpretations open for it.
Fa hadhal hadithu nassun Hadith is clay cut text. Fi shumuli al-hijabi lil wajh The hijab encompasses the face. Wa yufidu what benefits is An al-hijabi yamna'u al-ra'i min ma'rifatu al-mar'ati bi wajhiha Because Sufyan Ma'atilo didn't recognize me.
The fact I covered my face means La khawni al-wajhi mastura tamama al-satri She covered it properly. He wouldn't have known if she was wearing a niqab who she was. He only recognized her because She said that he saw me before.
So, and he mentions that statement of his Rahimahullah Ta'ala in his Kitab Ibrazi Al-Haq Sheikh Safir Rahman is not the sharih of the Kitab Tuhfatul Ahwadi I did a mistake. It's Abu Ula'a Mubarakafuri Sheikh Safir Rahman Mubarakafuri is the author of the Kitab Rahiq Al-Makhtoum Sorry, Rahiq Al-Makhtoum, sorry. And he's also the one who summarized the Kitab Tafseer Al-Nuqatheer that we have in English.
Al-Muneer, I think it's called. Fi Ikhtisari Kitab Tafseer Al-Nuqatheer He's the one who summarized, Sheikh Safir Rahman Who died the year 1427 Hijri. So it was a mistake.
Not Sahib al-Tuhfatul Ahwadi. They are from that land, Mubarakafuri, but he mentions this, Rahi Maulana Imam Al-Fidh Hadith as well, a great scholar Rahi Maulana Muhammad Al-Wasi'a. So we've already agreed that the wives of the Prophet ﷺ have to wear the niqab. That's not up for discussion. Aisha is the wife of the Prophet ﷺ. So, I don't understand why this even isn’t clear. You need to watch your dalalah from this. What I'm taking from this hadith is Fakhammartu, the khimar that we were talking about before. And also another benefit I want to take from this is that the hijab that Aisha radiAllahu ta'ala anha mentioned. So Ayat al-Hijab, we already talked about that, that Aisha is talking about. So it means that she covered her face based on that. No problem. Even if I believe that the niqab is recommended, I believe Aisha, our mother, would be doing the recommended acts for sure. It doesn't really mean it's obligatory just because she's doing it. I believe she prayed the two rak'ahs before the start of Fajr, but I would never say it's obligatory just because she did it.
Now, two things you have to understand. She's saying Fakhammartu, which shows khimar is covering your face. It can be, it can cover the face, no problem. We already took that it doesn't always cover the face. And also, what we’re taking from this is that Ayat al-Hijab shows the niqab obligation for the wives of the Prophet ﷺ, and also the other believing women as well. Which ayah is she referring to when she says Ayat al-Hijab?
So Ayat al-Hijab is the ayah, of course, which we agreed that that ayah is clearly addressing the wives of the Prophet ﷺ. So if I was correct and it only addressed them, if, for argument's sake, then this hadith doesn’t really prove anything for you. But what about Fakhammartu? Fakhammartu, we already discussed that the khimar, the default definition of that is something that covers the head as per the mas'ah of the Prophet ﷺ, but it can be used to cover the face, no problem. And I’m saying Aisha did use it to cover the face in this hadith. But again, she has to cover the face because of the Ayat al-Hijab because she's a wife of the Prophet ﷺ. And even if we take that out, it's a recommended act. Of course, she’s going to do the recommended act. But it's worth it for her. Either way, it doesn’t prove anything. Aisha was doing it because it was obligatory on her. She wasn’t doing it because it was recommended. It doesn’t prove that it's obligatory.
Why was it recommended for the Prophet’s wives?
Say that again?
Why was it recommended?
Why was it made obligatory on the Prophet’s wives? Why was it made obligatory?
Because, okay, no problem. That's why the niqab was made obligatory on the Prophet's wives. And I would love the Prophet ﷺ to come and say, "By the way, He did not, He did not say that." He did not say ﷺ that, "By the way, this is for my wives." As the context of the ayah from the beginning to the end, right from the start right to the end. But just to let you believing women know, it also applies to you, nor did a companion. The earliest person you brought was Ibn Jalal Tabari. Let me go to my third evidence, hadith of Umm Atiyah. That the Prophet ﷺ, she said, the Prophet ﷺ commanded the women to go out for the Eid prayer. I said, one of us doesn't have a jilbab. The Prophet ﷺ, he said, Bukhari and Muslim both narrated this hadith: that one of her sisters should allow her to wear their jilbab. She has a spare one. This hadith shows that the Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen points this out. He said, this hadith shows, which is the norm according to the sahabiyat. He said the women will never come out without a jilbab, as per the ayah. You agree, right? The ayah clearly says that. We already took it before. We took the word, "I covered my face with my jilbab," "I covered my face with my jilbab." So the sahabiyat, they knew it to be that. I can say, "I covered my face with my sleeve." It doesn't mean my sleeve by default is covering my face every time I put on a sleeve. Yeah, but that's my point. You're right. The sleeve, you're covering with your face. Where did you get it from?
I just said the sentence now, what do you mean where did I get it from? The khimar being a form of covering the face, I already told you. You said it's a possibility. Sleeve covering your face is not from what it's known to do. I'm saying the sleeve is something that covers, right? It covers my arm. The sleeve is not for the face. If you use that, I'll be like, why did you use your sleeve? Why didn't you just use your top collar? I'm saying closer, that's my point. The point I'm trying to say to you, the point I'm trying to say to you is that she mentions the hadith. I mentioned the hadith. All of these sahabiyat are using the word jilbab as to cover the face. You haven't until now proven to me one sahabi or sahabiyah, because this is a hadith of Umm Atiyah saying, one of us doesn't have a jilbab. And we're finding the sahabiyat using jilbab for face cover. Why would she say that I covered my face with my jilbab and by default that means face?
Why does she have to specify face? It's almost like the jilbab doesn't always cover the face, but she does in this example because she specified face.
That's my point. I'm not denying the fact that a person can wear trousers and their legs can still show. But the trousers cover the legs, so you have to remove it. I'm wearing trousers now. I can pull my trousers up so high that even my thighs can be seen. This is sirwal. When somebody says, "I'm wearing trousers," you understand it normally as something that covers your legs. No one would ever say, "I covered my legs with my trousers." They don't need to say, "I covered my legs." They just say, "I wore trousers." Sometimes people do emphasize, "I swear I saw it with my eyes." Where else would you have seen it?
That's true. But for Aisha to say, "I covered my face," it's almost like indicating to us that the jilbab doesn't always have to cover the face. It's like saying, "I covered my face," but the sahabiyat, that's what it meant to them. That's my point.
The fourth evidence that I have: That Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him and his father, he said, the Prophet ﷺ said: "The person who drags his garment out of arrogance, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Judgment." So men whose garments are dragging on the ground, if they do it out of arrogance, Allah will not look at them on the Day of Judgment. And if they do it without arrogance, their legs are going to be in hellfire because the Prophet ﷺ said. So if a man, any man, who wears his garment below his ankles out of arrogance, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Judgment. She said, "What about the women? What do they do with their lower garment, the part that's touching the floor, the tail of the garment, the part that drags on the ground?"
The Prophet ﷺ said, "Just a hand span. She has to do it." She said, "Their legs are going to show."
The Prophet ﷺ said, "Their arm is this much and they don't increase on that." Imam Ahmed narrated it. Tirmidhi narrated it. Tirmidhi considered it to be hasan. Sheikh al-Albani authenticated it in Jilbab al-Mar'at al-Muslimah. Okay, my question to you is, Bayhaqi when he brought this in his Sunan al-Kubra, he said, "This shows that it's obligatory for the woman to cover her legs." And I know you're not going to deny that. Of course, I'm with you on that.
Al-Allama Humud ibn Abdulahi Tawajiri, who died in the year 1412 Hijri, the reason why Sheikh al-Albani was going back and forth on the whole issue of niqab, if you read Jilbab al-Mar'at al-Muslimah, it was between him and Sheikh Humud ibn Abdulahi Tawajiri back and forth. There's a kitab called Al-Assalim al-Mashhoor. He mentions that this hadith shows that a woman has to cover her legs. Then he said a very powerful question. He asked a very clever and smart and honest, good question. He said, "If a woman has to cover her legs"—okay, which we all agree that the attraction for a woman's face is far greater and far more than her legs—"Are you going to say to me that the shari'ah is going to oblige, according to you, oblige the woman to cover her legs, when the fitnah that arises from erosions or comes from the woman's feet is lower than that which comes from the face situationally?"
Yeah, we've gone through all these arguments before. These are all philosophical, logical arguments, and the reverse can be done for the man. The man has to cover just above his knee, just above his knee. That area which is not attractive at all, it has to be covered. His face is more attractive.
There's a reason why he has to cover between those two. Because the private parts are there. No, no, no, just above his knee. That's the whole area of his private parts. So there has to be a section he has to know. You can't just tell him to cover your private part. So it's the area of his genital. So cover this part. But I'm saying to you, you used it like that, of our time.
No, of course, I'm not denying the logic of the argument. But like we've said many times in previous podcasts, we get our religion from the Quran and the Sunnah. We don't get it from our own intellect. It's a strong logical argument. You can't look. You're right, but you're wrong. You're right in the sense we don't use intellectual evidences on the expenses of the Quran and the Sunnah.
No, we're not saying that. وَلَيْسَ عَلَيْهِنَّ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ يَضَعْنَ ثِيَابَهُنَّ غَيْرَ مُتَبَرِّجَاتٍ بِزِينَةٍ وَيَسْتَعْفِفْنَ خَيْرٌ. I mean those verses I've mentioned them, and then I've mentioned the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ, لَا تَتَقَابَلُ الْمَرْأَةُ وَلَا تَرْبِسُوْا الْقُفَازَيْنِ يَحْذِذُوا مَشْرُوًا النِّقَابَ. And I mentioned the hadith of Sufyan ibn Mu'athir, you know, hadiths with all of that. Now we're going to add on to that the rational proofs for this argument. You're saying yet something lower in rank. تَسْتَبْدِلُونَ الَّذِي هُوَ أَدْيَنَ بِالَّذِي هُوَ خَيْرٌ. And we have something within things we need to know. Is all the haram the same level? No. All the wajibat the same level? No. So you know salah is wajib. Okay? Salah is what? It's wajib, it's a big wajib act. Salah being wajib, and let's say niqab according to me being wajib right now, am I going to say it's the same? No, but then I'm not going to say it's the same. Of course, they're not the same.
So what I'm trying to do is that you're telling me the legs—sorry, the foot of a woman—it's not even the leg, it's the foot. The قَدَم is just the foot. The foot of a woman is fitna. Okay? And she should cover it. I'm saying the foot of a woman has to be covered because we have a clear-cut hadith from the sunnah. I'm going to stop there. As for the face, we don't have anything clear-cut. Because everything has required a discussion.
You see the religion, you see Islam, why is it fit for every time? Tell me, what's the reason? Why is Islam as a religion fit for every time, every era?
Why is Islam this one religion that can work for any time? Because it has principles in place that then can be used for any time, no matter what changes. The poet, he said, "The reason why Islam is a comprehensive religion is because it mentions ilal," meaning reasonings. Yeah, I like that. Hikam. So then when issues arise... Yes, take this farah. Take it to an asr. Take this farah, bring it to an asr. You're right, very comprehensive.
So here we have... No, but you're right and you're wrong. You're right because you're saying when issues arise... Yes, a new issue, like for example the internet, weed, for example marijuana—these are new issues that weren't known at that time. The face of a woman was there at that time. It's not a new issue that’s arisen. There’s a reason that we need an ilal. I'm saying give me a nas because it was there at the time.
Yeah, yeah. And I have provided, I think, extensive evidences for that. But now I'm saying, let's say we didn't. Let's say we didn't bring any textual evidences for it. The ilal why you made the legs haram, definitely the face should apply for it.
Do you believe the woman has to cover her eyes as well?
No, no, the eyes, she doesn't have to. But the eyes are more attractive than the cheek. A man would never ever see her eyes. Why would he have to see her eyes for? Why would he not see her eyes if she's wearing niqab but she's got her eyes there?
The Prophet said, Allah said, وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ. The women, Surah An-Nur, Allah says, وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ. The women should lower their gaze in the first place. So when the woman is looking down, no one is going to see her eyes.
Okay, now if that's the case, the man has also been commanded to lower his gaze, right? Beautiful. So then why can she have her face uncovered? He's never going to see her. Which one? According to your logic, according to your argument, the man has been told to lower his gaze from a woman, whether she has her face uncovered or not.
See, that’s why I’m telling you, this will close. It doesn’t want to close one or two doors; it wants to close doors for her to reach it. So if he does want to look up at her, she’s covered. So there’s nothing for him.
So you see, there’s a role on the side of the man and there’s a role required from the woman. The part for the man does not eliminate the woman, or the woman doesn’t eliminate the man.
Okay, so the man has to lower his gaze. The girl has to lower her gaze. The woman has to dress appropriately. The man, on the other hand, also needs to dress appropriately. We can say, why? Okay, then fair and square. Why are men wearing clothes for?
Take all of your clothes off because the women are going to lower their gaze. They're not going to look at us. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. That's why you said that the man would never see the eyes of a woman because he's always lowering his gaze. Because when he looks at her, and she's looking down, he can't even see. If he wanted to, there will be occasions where they have to—in trading, in business. Of course, there are going to be occasions. There are situations. You can't even see her face.
Okay, fine. I'm saying there are other situations. Even when you're just walking by, the woman has to see where she's going. She might walk into a lamp post. She looks up. A man sees her eyes. I'm saying if we're going to go through the logical process of saying the cheek has to be covered, which is less attractive than the eyes, then you have to apply the same thing. I think all of those are adherences.
That's fair. That's fair. I'm not going to lie.
Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud (RA) - Fifth evidence from the Sunnah, and this is a hadith. Al-Imam al-Tirmidhi narrated it. Shaykh Nasir (RA) authenticated it in his Al-Irwan al-Ghalil that the Prophet (SAW) said on the authority of Ibn Mas'ud:
المرأة عورة - that the woman is an ‘awrah. So if she goes out, الشيطان beautifies her. You see, استشرفها means يُزينها. And he beautifies her in the eyes of the men. And the reason why he’s doing that is to يُغويها and يُغوي بها, to deviate the people through her and cause other people confusion and fitnah.
So this hadith says, المرأة عورة—the woman is an ‘awrah. The original position is that the woman is considered what? ‘Awrah. It’s very important. Now, what we say is, and I mentioned this before, is والله—it’s important to draw attention to two important issues. The difference between ‘awrah in صلاة (prayer) and ‘awrah in باب النظر (the issue of looking).
This is very important.
The علماء (scholars) say that the face is not an ‘awrah when she’s in the صلاة (prayer). Okay, and what’s the reason for that? How? You did cover this briefly before, but I want to challenge you on it. You said that the man, for example, outside the صلاة, doesn’t have to cover his shoulder, but we have a hadith that proves that inside the صلاة, he has to cover his shoulder.
Okay, I want to challenge you on that because you’re trying to get from this both parties. You see, evidence is not required if it’s a matter agreed on by both parties, and I agree with you on that. But since we both agree that in the صلاة, the woman doesn’t have to cover her face, yes? We both agree on that. And nor does she have to cover her hands, yes? In the صلاة, we both agree upon that.
Okay, fine. Based on the hadith that you mentioned before, the woman doesn’t have to wear niqab. The woman, sorry, she wears khimar when she’s praying. You mentioned that before, the hadith I did. So then that shows that you don’t believe khimar is by default face covering, right?
No, I told you, the way we understand it is, في حالة الصلاة (in the case of prayer), the face أصلاً (by default) is not an ‘awrah. But the hadith doesn’t mention ‘awrah. I’m saying to you, حبيبي (my dear), the صلاة, there is no ‘awrah of the face أصلاً (at all). Okay, in this situation, the woman is not an ‘awrah in the face and the hands.
خارج الصلاة (outside of prayer), there’s a different ‘awrah for her. Okay, this is a specific ‘awrah for her.
Okay, what I’m saying is that the face is not an ‘awrah in صلاة or outside the صلاة. Now, your proof to show that there’s a difference in ‘awrah in صلاة and outside the صلاة, that’s different. You brought the example, this issue, where I have to prove her ‘awrah from inside the صلاة and outside the صلاة, has nothing to do with the obligation of niqab. It’s a side point.
No, there is, because how—if for example, we say, I say that the face outside the صلاة is not ‘awrah, that’s my position, right? It’s not ‘awrah. Okay? And I say, look to prove that it’s not ‘awrah, we agree.
No, you can’t say that because that’s not my point. So you’re going to say, now, your rebuttal is actually that inside the صلاة, it’s a different ‘awrah, and to prove that, you brought the hadith of the man having to wear something on his shoulders.
Okay, my question for that is that the إلا for that, we go back to إلا. You like using it all the way through this podcast, من باب الإحترام (from the perspective of honoring something), like the صلاة is something that’s honorable. The man has to cover something that he doesn’t normally have to cover.
Okay, the man has to cover something inside the صلاة which he doesn’t have to cover outside the صلاة. That’s من باب الإحترام (out of respect). It’s not what’s the reason why the man has to cover something in the صلاة that he doesn’t have to cover outside. What’s the reason? Because it’s عورة? What’s the reason that it’s made عورة there?
Like we said, Allah’s rules, Allah’s rules have wisdom behind it. What’s the reason? What’s the إلا for why Allah knows? Inside the صلاة, Allah knows. I don’t know. Could it not be said that من باب الإحترام (out of respect), from venerating the صلاة, from honoring the صلاة, that he has to cover something? I don’t know. The إلا for why the man has to put something on his shoulders—I’ll stop there, I don’t know.
Okay, because the point I’m trying to get at is that you’ve proved that a man has to cover something that he doesn’t normally have to cover. The woman, on the other hand, is the opposite way around. No, you’re saying she can take off something in the صلاة that she normally has to cover.
The reason is because the نقاب (niqab) and the جلباب (outer garment), the نقاب and the gloves, is عورة because of what? People looking at her. That’s what it is.
Okay, does that make sense? Yeah, it does. There’s an عورة that the woman has when she’s at home, even with her brother. There’s an عورة that she can’t show to anybody else. I don’t know. Her brother—she can’t just uncover in front of him and put her clothes on in front of him, even though her brother won’t have designs for his own sister. There’s an amount that’s required from him. Does that make sense? It does, yeah.
So I’m saying to you, التفريق بين العورة في الصلاة والعورة في باب النظر (the distinction between ‘awrah in prayer and ‘awrah in the context of viewing). What if someone’s watching her in the صلاة? She has to cover now. Okay, that’s what we say. Once she knows she’s in the صلاة, it’s like حج (Hajj), she has to cover her face now. She has to place something over her face because it’s about نظر (looking). Now, she’s in a place where she doesn’t have to cover her face.
Okay, also, this is where some people try to say: "Are you trying to say that the woman’s مثلاً (for example) her thighs and her face are the same عورة?" No. What عورة types? There’s عورة which is مغلظة (intensified) and there’s عورة which is مخففة (lightened).
Okay, the عورة which is مغلظة, what we know by it, is that it has to be covered every time, in صلاة and outside صلاة. The عورة in the thighs has to always be covered because it’s an عورة in and of itself. It’s always going to be an عورة in every situation.
The مغلظة and the مخففة—what we know by it is that it’s done in the صلاة but not outside the صلاة. Sorry, it’s done outside the صلاة but not in the صلاة. Which is عورة النظر الأجانب (the ‘awrah when strangers are looking at her), only then is it considered ‘awrah.
So it’s عورة لغيره لا لداته (an ‘awrah not by itself but for external reasons).
Okay. And Shaykh Usama Taimur mentions this. He says: وَالتَّحْقِيقُ أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ بِعَوْرَةٍ فِي الصَّلَاةِ وَهُوَ عَوْرَةٌ فِي بَابِ النَّظَرِ (The clarification is that it is not an ‘awrah in the prayer, but it is an ‘awrah in the context of viewing).
He mentions that رحمه الله (may Allah have mercy on him). He’s a student of ابن القيم رحمه الله (Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him). He says, العورة عورتان: عورة في النظر وعورة في الصلاة (there are two types of ‘awrah: one in the context of viewing and one in the prayer).
So, he says, فَالْحُرَّةُ لَهَا أَن تُصَّلِي مَكْشُوفَةً (a free woman can pray with her face and hands showing) وَلَيْسَ لَهَا أَن تَخْرُجَ فِي الْأَصْوَاقِ وَمَجَامِعِ النَّاسِ كَذَلِكَ (but she cannot go outside like that).
ابن القيم رحمه الله (Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him).
Okay, where are you going to go next? So my sixth evidence, Inshallah, is going to be حديث عائشة رضي الله تعالى عنها. Imam Ahmad narrated it in his Musnad, many places in his Musnad, and Abu Dawood narrated it in his Sunan. And Shaykh al-Albani رحمه الله authenticated it, and he said, حَسَنُوا فِي شَوَاهِدِهِ (it is good in its supporting narrations). He said it like that exactly. Those were his words: حَسَنُوا فِي الشَّوَاهِدِ. So, Inshallah, it’s not something you can reject because of authenticity, well just because he agrees with my position and I have to take his authentication. But no problem, go ahead.
عائشة رضي الله تعالى عنها said: كَانَ الرُّكْبَانُ يَمُرُّ بِنَا (The riders will go by us) وَنَحْنُ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مُحْرَمَاتٌ (and we are in a state of Ihram with the Prophet ﷺ). فَإِذَا حَادُوا بِنَا (When those men would go by us) أَسْدَلَتْ إِحْدَانَ جِلْبَابَهَا مِنْ رَأْسِهَا عَلَى وَجْهِهَا (one of us would lower her jilbab from her head over her face). فَإِذَا جَاوَزْنَا كَشَفْنَاهُ (When they passed by, we would uncover our faces).
So this shows فَإِذَا حَادُوا بِنَا (when these people would go by us, the riding men) أَسْدَلَتْ إِحْدَانَ جِلْبَابَهَا (one of us would take out her jilbab and throw it over her face). It shows the obligation of why they would cover their face.
Where did we get obligation from again? Because this is عائشة, the wife of the Prophet ﷺ. And even if it was a recommended act, I still believe she would do that. So again, where are you getting obligation from for this one?
Is Asmaa bint Abi Bakr the Prophet's wife? No, she's not. I mentioned before. She said: كُنَّا نُغَطِّي وُجُوهَنَا مِنَ الرِّجَالِ فِي الْأَحْبَابِ (We used to cover our faces from the men during Ihram).
I believe that she would have done the recommended acts. I believe that firmly. Okay, the word she used was كُنَّا نُغَطِّي (We would cover). The noun is what? Say we did, so it’s in صِغَةِ الجَمْعِ (plural form), right? So what does that show? دَلِيلَ عَلَى أَعْمَلُ النِّسَاءِ (It’s evidence of the practice of the women at the time of the Prophet ﷺ).
No problem at all, they used to cover their faces, all of them. Yeah, I’m with you. So, we would find one or two people out there? No, I’m telling you, at the time of the Prophet ﷺ, we would have to find one person who would say, "She didn’t do it because she didn’t believe in it."
And we've got a حَدِيث coming in the second half. عائشة is not talking out of… Asmaa bint Abi Bakr is not talking about one or two; she’s talking about حَجْ (Hajj). She said: كُنَّا (We all) نُغَطِّي وُجُوهَنَا (we would cover our faces) مِنَ الرِّجَالِ فِي الْإِحْرَامِ (from the men inside of Ihram).
This is صِغَةِ الجَمْعِ (plural form). This is in plural form: كُنَّا نُغَطِّي وُجُوهَنَا (we would cover our faces). She said مِنَ الرِّجَالِ (from the men). Even كُنَّا and وُجُوهَنَا—it doesn’t just because a noon is used here, it doesn’t mean every single one. We use that expression all the time in English: "Oh, we were doing this," but like we all went—no, this is not royalty.
But there's one guy, no, I'm not talking about royalty. I'm talking about, let’s say there's six of us in the office. "Yeah, we all went to صلاة (prayer)." No, this can’t be. But one person left because of that. No, no, that can't be. This is حَجْ, by the way. This is the state of حَجْ, and we know in حَجْ, thousands and thousands of people come.
She's saying "We"—this is دليل على أن عمل النساء (evidence of the action of women) in the time of the companions رضي الله عنهم. They were على تغطية الوجوه من الرجال الأجانب (covering their faces from non-mahram men). That is the مقصود (intended meaning) I want, and that's what they already took from آية الحجات (the verses related to Hajj).
Okay, I'll say two things for that because these two things need thinking about, Inshallah. First of all, when someone says "we" and they're talking about thousands of people, they can't verify every single one. It's talking in general terms. Like, for example, when we say "we all came for the sake of Allah", it doesn't mean there isn’t one person in there who didn’t have a wrong intention. It could happen. But we're talking generally. When you say "all of us went for the sake of Allah", that's something we know by default. When you say that, it's an action of the heart.
No, I'm saying someone might have gone without it being for the sake of Allah.
Yeah, but I still said "we" because I don't know.
But I would know that you don't mean everybody from the سياق الكلام (context of the speech), because of the fact that we, who went there for the sake of Allah, that's something I know from the conversation. You couldn't have known it.
Oh, I see. But in the state of Ihram, if I look at one point and I say, "brother, all of us were wearing white Ihram", and I've been to Muzdalifah, I've been to Mina, I've been to Arafah, I’ve been to the Haram, and I did my tawaf around the Kaaba, and everything. And I said, "We were all wearing white." Brother, my point is, you're going to say: Do you understand my point? You went to Hajj. Was everybody wearing white?
Yeah, they were.
Yeah, that's the same thing. I should say, Asmaa bint Abi Bakr in here: "We used to cover our faces with men in Ihram." And I'm telling you, the issue that we mentioned before—النساء كلهن (all the women), like the غُرَاب (the crow), all of them covered straight away. This is the wives of the Prophet ﷺ.
So, I'm saying to you, the statement of Asmaa bint Abi Bakr, where she mentions that "we used to cover our faces with men in Ihram", shows that it’s not specific to the wives of the Prophet who were doing it. When Aisha said this, someone could argue: "Maybe she’s talking about the Prophet's wives, because that's what she said: 'When we're with the Messenger of Allah'." But I can easily debunk that. But then what about Asmaa bint Abi Bakr?
Yeah, I’m just saying that if you really look at that دليل (evidence) on its own, it’s hard to determine an obligation from it. It could be a highly, highly recommended act, and they all would have done it.
There’s a book I'm going to encourage students of knowledge to read. It’s called "Istidlalat Al-Usuliyyan" by Riyad Al-Sulami. He talks about Istidlalat Al-Usuliyyan (methodologies in deriving evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah). This book is very beneficial from one perspective, which is that he shows in his writing that when it comes to الدليل (evidence), sometimes one evidence alone cannot prove your point. But when you bring that evidence with another evidence and another evidence, it becomes clear. All of those evidences together will make it clear. Does that make sense?
If I give a logical argument: A person can't kill a person just with sand. They can't kill somebody with just water that they have. A cup of water, they can't. If they take water, pour it in sand, make the sand a bit hard, then burn the sand, and then heat it, it becomes hard and tough. And then wax it on somebody's hand, it kills them. So sometimes when we look at it each specifically, we may not come up with a bigger picture. When you bring all of those evidences together, it draws the big picture for us. And you have presented a lot of evidences. Are we got any more left, or can I go on my turn now?
The seventh evidence I have is that the Hadith, the seventh Hadith I have is Hadith R.A. Sorry, R.A. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "A woman should not look at another woman and then describe her to her husband like he's looking at her."
So what I want from the Hadith is: A wife is not allowed to describe her friend, her female friend, to her husband. The Hadith said, "like he's looking at her." The reason is because men were not looking at women, they couldn't see her face. She was covered because also they've been commanded to lower their gaze. And that's why they shouldn't be looking at women. It's got nothing to do with the face either.
But if we all know, if a woman... If a man... If a man... If a man... If a man... If a man... If a man... I feel sometimes we say that because we came from the West. No, no, honestly. No, no, honestly. I've traveled to Somalia. That's true. Even here, actually, we say to people, "Oh, yeah, the Niqabi sister," like that's the description we give her because it is rare. All of them are wearing Niqab.
Okay, so, the point I'm coming to is, if that was the case, in the sense where women wearing Niqab was rare
And okay, the women wearing Niqab were the... What about the Sahabiyat? Do you think, "Oh, they wore the Niqab"? The majority, I would say the majority. All of them? You would say all of them? Of course. But in your case, let's just say majority. Okay, let's not follow. Let's say majority. So the majority of men cannot see the women, right? Okay, yeah. But there’s a few that they could see if they wanted to look at. Few, okay? Yeah. Okay.
So you're saying that the only means to see a woman, majority of the people, would be what? Through their wives, right? Description of the wife, somebody describing his sister for them? Okay. For the ones who know, wearing Niqab, there’s no other way that a man can see. You said at the time of the Sahabas, we’re just talking about the face obviously, even... Yeah, okay. Yeah. So you're saying that the Sahabiyat, the majority of them, were wearing Niqab? Yes, okay, majority according to you. Okay, I believe all of them. Yeah, no problem. But according to you, so we come together on one thing which is: The men, the means that they could, majority, overwhelming majority of men, the means that they could know how a sister looks is based on what? What their wives tell them or their friends tell them. Okay, there's no other way to find out.
Okay, so the woman should not describe. A woman is not allowed to describe to her husband or her brother or anyone of them what she can’t do. Describe another sister. The hadith says, "like he’s looking at her." But if he looks at her, he can’t see anything. She’s wearing Niqab. So it means what? She’s not wearing Niqab. She’s not wearing Niqab. When you described her, you took the Niqab of the sister because you’re describing. Yes.
What I’m saying is, imagine a woman, he doesn’t even wear Niqab. A man is not allowed to look at her. Even then, a man is not allowed to look at her. He has to lower his gaze all the time because Allah commands him to lower his gaze. So therefore, you’re not denying that? I know you’re not. I’m saying to you, so by a woman describing her, even if she is wearing Niqab. Okay, according to you, they all wore Niqab? Yes. A man doesn’t need his wife to describe it. That’s what I’m saying. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wouldn’t... There would be no need. If there was another means, there’s no reason to just condemn this one, because this one is not... Look, if a man can see a woman, would he ask his wife how she looks? A man’s not allowed to see his woman because of the lower gaze, not because of Niqab. That’s a bit of confusion.
The majority of the people we’re living in today are looking at women. Okay, that’s my point. Why would he... They shouldn’t be though. Okay, I’m saying to you, the majority... But what I’m trying to say to you is that the man who would even ask his wife to tell him how Fulana looks like, there’s something wrong. Yeah, I agree. There’s something wrong. Totally.
So exactly, my point here is: If there’s another means to see the woman, this is my argument. If there’s another means to see the woman, mentioning... Don’t... A sister should not explain to another sister how her husband’s... how this woman looks to her husband would have... And it’s rarely occurring. No, that’s not fair.
Why, if there's another... First of all, let's just say there is another means. Do you understand my point?
First of all, I get it, but I think it's very weak. Honestly, honestly speaking, even if there was another means to look at a woman, let's just say there is another means, even then the wife still shouldn't describe to the man. Do you get it?
Okay, but why? Why do you think that just because she shouldn't describe, that means there’s no other means? I don’t understand how you’re getting them two together. That doesn’t make sense.
I’m saying, even if there’s another means the man could look at another woman, first of all, he’s been told not to because Allah told him to lower his gaze. Secondly, even if Allah didn’t say that and he could look at another woman, I’m saying... Do you get what I’m saying?
I understand my point, but I’m saying to you, the fact that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was addressing it like this to the women was that that was the only option of how men can see...
No, that’s your mefhum going on to the hadith though.
No, because you only mention an issue because there’s something concerning it. By the way, the other thing is, "like he’s looking at her." Yeah, because it doesn’t exist. They don’t look at her because he shouldn’t. Because there’s no one who gazes, that’s our point.
No, it’s not. You know, this argument actually works against you, by the way. There’s a hadith that goes against you on this issue.
Okay, there’s an argument that works against you on this one as well. Let me cover that first. If you were saying that Allah commanded the men to lower their gaze and the women believe that... And the women, okay, no problem. Both of them, Allah commanded the men and the women to lower their gaze.
If Allah did that, what are they looking at if they’re all covered anyway? Why would Allah command the men to lower their gaze?
Beautiful. I’ll tell you. When the wind blows her, he wants to see those things which he can’t do anything about.
I'll respond to that question. The next point I have against you is, we never have the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم saying the men should not describe to their wives the way that a man looks like because the men can be seen.
That’s one. Second thing that works against you is, there’s a sahabi who used to come into the masjid. He would go to the last line, as you know, at the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. The men and the women, there was not a veil to cover between the salah. The men are praying at the front, the women are praying at the back. There’s no women’s section, men’s section.
What would the sahabi do? He would go back to the ending of the prayer. Shaykh Nasser authenticated this. To look at the women in the front row, he would, under his leg, under his arm, look at the women.
Okay, this shows you a few things. The first thing is the sahabi. This was the only chance he could see the women. This sahabi doesn’t have to see the women in the salah. He could wait outside the masjid and wait for them. He could see them. They were not wearing niqab. By the way, the women, their hairs are not showing, their faces are not showing, their hands... It’s specifically their face and their hands that can be seen in the prayer.
The reason I’m trying to point here is the issue of looking at women was present. This is... I’m with you. I’m saying it just shows if a sahabi was looking at a woman within the prayer, he looked at her. He looked at her in the prayer. Are you listening to me?
Yeah, I’m listening. This shows that outside the prayer, most likely a man would see a woman even if he didn’t intentionally want to look at her.
Okay, even if he saw her at the first time and he turned away, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said to Ali bin Abi Talib: لا تتبع النظرة على النظرة فإن لك الأولى وليس لك الآخر "The first look is for you, and the second look is not yours."
The point I’m trying to come to is, and I think for me personally it’s convincing, but maybe not for you, maybe not for many people as well, but for me personally, it’s very convincing, which is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is telling the women because this is the only avenue, this is the only path a man can actually know how a woman looks like.
At the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, was that either... Look, when we speak about Allah’s characteristics and attributes, what do we say? In order to know how Allah looks like, you have to see Him yourself. Can you see Allah? No, no you can’t.
The second thing is, Allah سبحانه وتعالى brings about someone who saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to tell us about... Sorry, saw Allah to tell us how He looks like. Is there anyone who saw Allah to tell us how He looks like? No.
Those two means are the means to know. There’s a third means, which is that the person themselves gives you the description of how they look. And that’s the only one that we can know a lot about. Or the fourth one is, you compare one to the other.
Okay, and obviously we can’t do that with Allah, with Allah we can’t do that. Yeah, this teaches us the concept of knowing how somebody looks.
The women at the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, in order to know how she looked like... Okay, in order to know how she looked like, they did that, Radiallahu ta'ala Anha, was through a woman. Their wives would either tell them, or the woman...
Do you understand my point? Yeah, because they were commanded to lower the gaze. That’s the problem here. I rest my case.
Okay, anything else from your side?
Yes, I have the last and final hadith, the eighth hadith, which is the hadith of al-Mughirah ibn al-Shu’ma, Radiallahu ta'ala Anhu, where he said, "I came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, and I told him about a woman that I wanted to see."
He said, "I came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, and I told him about a woman that I wanted to see." The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said to him, "Go and look at her, because this is a means, of course, to make your marriage last forever."
When the woman came to know about this matter, she was informed that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said to al-Mughirah that he can see the woman, she said, "If the Prophet permitted for you to look at her, then I looked at her and I married her."
I looked at her and I married her. This hadith... Question to you: What was it that he did? The Prophet said, "Go and see this woman that you want to get married to."
Go and what? See this woman.
My question to you is, we know in fiqh that a man can go and what? See the looks of a woman, how she looks, okay, before if he wants to get married to her.
Yes? Do you believe that the man can go and look at the woman’s hair and her neck?
Yes, you believe that?
Yes, before marriage.
Evidence may not work for you, okay. If you believe that the man can look at the woman’s hair, which I think a person should only restrict himself to the face and the hands. That’s enough.
Ok, let’s just say, for example, someone is watching this and they believe that it’s only for the face. Let’s just follow that argument through. If they follow through that argument where they believe that the only thing a man can see from the woman is her face and her hands, then this hadith shows the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was commanding the man, Sahabi, to go and look at the woman’s face and hands as it was covered, yes? Or, because before he has to lower his gaze... again, it goes back to that. Do you get it? Before, he’s not thinking about lowering his gaze. No, now he’s thinking, okay, you can look at her.
No, there’s something even... she realized that the Prophet allowed him to do it. She said, “If the Prophet commanded you, the Prophet commanded you to look at me, then look at me.” The point I’m trying to say to you is that she had the ability to stop him from that as well. It wasn’t just that she allowed him to see her.
That’s what this... You’re saying the Sahabi went to the woman and said, "Can you take off your..." No, she found out before he even went to her, okay, that the Prophet permitted for al-Mughirah to see her. That shows she didn’t want him to see her.
So, let’s say, for example, the woman isn’t wearing niqab. Let’s just say, in my side, the argument is not wajib. She’s got her face uncovered. The man has been commanded to lower his gaze. He goes to the Prophet and he says, “You can look at her.” That means now, okay, you don’t need to lower your gaze anymore in this particular situation. She’s saying, "If the Prophet told you that you could do this, then you can." What’s the issue with that? I don’t understand how you get niqab as wajib from any of this.
I’m saying to you, the woman, she was covered. I know that’s what you’re saying because that’s what you believe. You believe she was covered as well, and maybe not the face, I can say. Yeah, of course, I believe she was covered. No problem, you believe her face was covered, I can say that. Even it doesn’t really... because mustahabb is recommended. I can say that, no problem.
So, he saw her. So, what did he see? He saw her face. He saw her face after the proposal, after the Prophet allowed it. Before that, before that, if she believes the niqab is mustahabb, then she’d be covered. If not, then he’d have seen her face. But he still didn’t see her face before because he’s lowering his gaze. That’s the point I’m getting at. Whether she’s got her face covered or not, it doesn’t matter. He’s not allowed to look at her.
It does matter for me. So, her face was covered, okay, let’s just say. Okay, let’s go down that route. Yeah, was her face covered? I don’t actually know. That’s what he’s saying, from the narration that her face was covered.
Okay, let’s just say her face was covered, for example. Yeah, so she said, “If the Prophet allowed you, He allowed you, then look at me. Here I am.” But if not, no. He said, “I looked at her. I got married to her.” Okay, this shows us that the men who were honorable at that time, many other companions, they weren’t able to see the woman they wanted to get married to. The women were covered. Yeah, they’re not allowed to because they have to lower their gaze.
I’m just... I’m saying to you, the point I’m trying to say to you is that Mughirah wanting to see this woman, the wanting to see her was something... He doesn’t have to lower his gaze when he wants to get married to her. No, before he wasn’t allowed to see her. Before. So, the Prophet said, “Go see her.” Yeah, go see her. Okay, go and look at her, right?
Okay, yeah. And then, what did she say? Okay, I allow you. If the Prophet lets you, now what does that show you? If he wanted to see her, he doesn’t care about whether she allows it or not. He saw her now, he could look up. It shows that she was covering and she had to uncover for him to see. That’s clear in the hadith. Even if you say that’s clear, no problem. She believes it’s mustahabb, it still doesn’t prove...
Okay, beautiful. But let’s... as long as you believe she was wearing niqab.
No, I don’t know. That’s what I’m saying. Not on the premise... the premise is that it was wajib. But, of course, she was wearing niqab.
Okay, no problem, I’ll go with that. No problem. So, I mean, of course. Why are you saying he was asking? He was asking, “Can I see your hair?” Because that’s the only thing she has to uncover, possibly.
And so, he’s not saying, “Uncover your face for me.” Could have been her hair. So, he wasn’t allowed to look at her at the beginning. He’s not allowed to look at her regardless of whether she’s covered or not. Okay, her face is showing, so he has to lower his gaze. Yeah, even if her face wants to go in, we still agree he has to lower his gaze. So, he lowers his gaze and her face is showing. Her face is showing, he never saw her face, he never saw anything so far. He never saw her face.
So then he came to the Prophet of Allah. So, he’s lowering his gaze. The Prophet said, “Go look at her. Go look at her.” So, he went. When he went to her, he said, “I want to see you.” So now, he looks at her. What is it that he wanted to see? It could have been hair. No, but he hasn’t seen her face. Could have been hair, could have been face. He was lowering his gaze. You said he hasn’t seen her face. He hasn’t seen anything so far. He hasn’t seen her face. And now he wants to see what?
Okay, her face. He wants to see her face. That’s all it is. He wants to see her face. It could be face and hair, but I’m just saying, for you, you wanted me to agree that it’s just face. No problem.
It seems like that. It doesn't seem like I don't, from the Sahabas and the honorability. I don't think any woman would, Mughira would ask the Prophet ﷺ, "I want to see your hair," would be far-fetched for me personally, or the hands or anything. No problem. What seems to be apparent is that he wanted to see her face, and she was covering her face. He asked her, "Can I take off your cover now? Can I see your face?" She even allowed him. She goes, "If the Prophet ﷺ let you, no problem." So he saw her face. What I'm trying to take from this is: where did you get that she took off her cover? It says in the hadith, or have you just added it? Because that would be crucial.
Yeah, but she said, "If the Prophet ﷺ allowed you to look at me, look at me now." Yes. So my argument is that it's not her hair that she's allowing him to see. Okay, no problem. Because it's something she's showing him. Okay, let's just say it's her face. No problem.
Okay, so I'm trying to say that this virtuous time, where these people were honorable Sahaba to Rasulullah ﷺ, we would actually literally say about the Companions how great they were. At the time, when these women, if they even took off their covers, the Sahaba, their men were so honorable and righteous not to even look at that woman. I'm trying to say if they were told, the women were told to cover, with Mughira being a Companion at that time and Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and Umar as-Siddiq and Khattab, a time when the fitnah today is all over the place, fusaq, mujrimīn, who would lust over just the ones wearing the niqab, the ones that wear the niqab, there's lust still there for her. What do you think about the woman whose face is shown?
And I personally experienced one thing. There was a girl in our school in secondary school in Birmingham. So what happened was she was wearing... She used to wear niqab in class, and I was young, and I saw her wearing niqab. To be honest with you, when I studied the religion, I used to think niqabs were for elderly people. I didn't know that, you know, young people can wear it. She was in class; she wore niqab. She just came from Somalia. Everybody used to say, "Oh, I want to know how you look like." The kuffar, they were like, "Oh, how does she look like?" They would make jokes about her, and they would say things that weren't pleasant. One day, she came into the class and she wasn't wearing niqab, and I remember, Wallahi, sitting next to a non-Muslim guy, who saw her face, and he said something. He goes, "Wow, she's really good looking." Non-Muslim guy. That's it. Khalas. He determined her looks just on her face. Yeah, yeah, it's true. That was enough for him to just now know this girl. All this time, he was very eager to know.
So I'm just saying the waqia (incident)... No, I'm with you. Let's just say, for example, because I went with you saying, "Yeah, her face cover," let's just say.
Now we go with me. Her face was uncovered. He's not allowed to look at her, so he's never seen her because he's been told to lower his gaze. The Prophet ﷺ tells him he can look at her. He goes up to her and she catches him looking at her. She's startled, obviously. The companions don't do this. They don't look straight into the face of the woman. She's saying, "Oh, if the Prophet ﷺ let you, then you can look." You can't say that. It doesn't have to mean anything. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the concept of looking happens even unintentionally. You know what I mean? Like, looking is not something we should do. I don't know. Be with me. I understand. Like, there are many avenues where a man can see a woman without marriage. He can see her when she's buying and selling. He can look at her. Do you understand my point?
The issue of looking, by the way, is not haram ul-lidaytih. Yeah, I know. The idea of looking at a woman is hurr masadda l-lidaytih because of what's going to lead to zina. If that look is going to lead to something that's positive in Islam, you're allowed to look at that woman. Marriage is a positive thing. You're not allowed to look at the woman. Do you understand my point? But there has to be something, by the way. You sometimes even forget, as you're focused on a point in your mind, when you're walking and you're going to see a woman. There's an avenue of knowing how a sister looks. Yeah. Do you see my point? Yeah. It meant he needed her side of the approval. That's my point. That's what was holding Mughira back, and she gave it to him. She said, "If the Prophet ﷺ allowed it, no problem."
This issue, some of the ulama have even transmitted ijma'. Which issue? This hadith or this? This whole discussion, the covering of the face. And the ijma' here seems to be two types: ijma' which is qawli and ijma' which is amali. And when I, Insha'Allah ta'ala, conclude that final point, then you can bring your points, Insha'Allah ta'ala.
Some of the scholars who transmitted ijma' are al-Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni, who died in the year 478 Hijri. He said, "Ittafqa al-Muslimun," and the scholars of Islam are unanimously in agreement, "Ala man'u an-nisa'i min al-khururi safirati al-wujuh," that the woman should not leave with their faces uncovered. "La'anna al-nadhra madhinnatu al-fitnah," because looking is a cause of fitnah. Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Wazir, Qudadiya 840, he said, "Wa ajma'u," they are unanimously in agreement, "Ala wujub al-hijabi min al-nisa'i," the woman has to cover herself. We took already what hijab meant, and that's his view. Ibn al-Wazir, Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Wazir, that's what his view was.
Ibn al-Raslan al-Shafi'i, Qudadiya 844, he said, "Ittafqa al-Muslimun," and the scholars of Islam are unanimously in agreement, "Ala man'a al-nisa'i an yakhrujna safarati an al-wujuh," that it's unanimous agreement by the scholars that a woman should be prevented from leaving the houses and traveling and going when their faces are uncovered. "Lasiya ma'inda kathrat al-fussaq," especially when the fussaq are a lot.
Badruddin al-'ayni al-Shafi'i, Qudadiya 855, he said, "Yajibu alayha al-hijabi min al-rijali al-ajani bil-ijma'a." Ibn al-Mubarrid al-Habari, he said, "Wayajibu alayha satru wajhiha ida barazat." Ida barazat, here he means, hatta... Listen, just to show you, some people, they think that niqab is just a Wahhabi practice. I'm trying to bring different people.
Khalil Ahmed Asahan Fori al-Halafi, who studied in Deoban, he has a kitab called Badlu al-Majhood Jashar Hussain Abi Dawood. He mentions, he says, "Wayadullu ala taqiyyid kashfi al-wajhih bil-haja." "Ittafaq al-muslimuna," he said, "Ittafaq al-muslimuna," sorry, "Ala man'a al-nisa'i an yakhrujna safarati al-wujuh, lasiya ma'inda kathrat al-fussaq wa dhukurhi." That's what he's mentioned.
The Mufti of Pakistan, Muhammad Shafi' al-Hanafi, who died here in 1396 Hijri, he says, "Wa bil-jumla, this is not a Wahhabi Saudi practice." He says, "Wa bil-jumla, faqad ittafaqat madahib al-fuqaha wa jumhur al-ummati 'ala anaw la yajuzu lil-nisa'i al-shawab kashfu al-wujuh wala kif wala kuf baina al-ajanibi wa yustatna minhu al-ajais li qawlihi ta'ala wa al-qawa'idu min al-nisa'i lati li'aya."
Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Ubaz, he said, "Wa qad ajma' ulama'i salaf, the Salaf unanimously agreed upon, 'Ala wujubi satri al-mar'ati al-muslimati li-wajhiha wa anna awratun yajibu alaiha satru illa min dhi mahramin.'" That's the ijma' qawli. Ibn Abbas is saying the Salaf unanimously agreed upon that women have to cover their faces. Unanimously agreed.
The Salaf al-Saleh, three noble generations, the Khilafah came after. There's ijma' amali, that was ijma' qawli. They stated it like that. There's ijma' amali. Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, who died in the year 505, he did it up. Let's just go in ijma' qawli first of all. The ijma' amali we will strengthen it as well. Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, who died in the year 505, he said, "Lam yazal al-rijalu 'ala marri al-zamani"—the men were, all the time, throughout Islamic history, "makshoofay al-wujuhi"—their faces were showing, "wa an-nisa'u yakhrujna muntaqibat"—the women who came out with the niqabs. This is historically, all through Islamic history. He is saying this.
Ibn Hayyan al-Andalusi, the mufassir al-lughawi, who died in the year 745 in Syria, he says, "Wa kadha wa kadha a'datu biladi al-Andalus," in Andalus (Spain), modern-day Spain, Portugal, and all of this land, Portugal and stuff like that. The women in Andalus, all of them, "la yadharu minna al-marati illa aynuha al-wahida"—one eye would show.
Ibn Nooruddin al-Muzi'iyu al-Shafi'iyu, who died in the year 825 in Syria, he said, "Lam yazal amal al-nisa'u 'ala hadha qadeeman wa hadita fi jami'i al-amsari wa al-aqtar"—the women have always practiced this, both in the past and currently, in all the cities and regions. "Fayatasamahuna lil'ajuzi"—and the only person they gave an exception to is the woman who's reached an old age. "Fi kashfi"—when she had to uncover her face and her hands. "Wala yatasamahuna lil'shab"—but they never allowed the young youth. "Wa yaroona hawratan wa munkaran"—and they all saw it as an evil thing for her to do it.
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, who died in the year 852 in Syria, he said, "Istamarra al-amalu 'ala jawazi khuruj al-nisa'i ila al-masajidi wa al-aswaqi wa al-asfari muntafimat"—this is what the norm was. "Li alla yaraa hunna al-rijal"—so the men can't see them. He also said in another place, "Wa lam tazal a'adatun nisa'i khadeeman wa haditha"—the women's norms, before and after, "yasturna wujuhahunna aanil ajanib"—that they will cover themselves from the men. So, shaheed, the neck, the chest, the legs, even the hair. "Wallahi, the face is a greater fitna than all of this." Sidqan, if you just saw a woman's neck by itself, no shahood would come from this side. Hatta if you see a woman's chest by itself, it won't be. Her two legs by itself, it won't be. The first thing a man wants to know, the first beauty, is their face. Bil ijma'a, this you could say is an ijma'a. Majority of the people, I want to know how she looks, her face. Hatta to the extent, you understand? A woman seeing her based on her face.
Before we move on to the next part of the podcast, Insha'Allah ta'ala, where you might want to ask a couple of questions, I just want to mention a side point, and I think it's important. The statements of Imam Malik, Shafi'i, and Abu Hanifa, okay? We have to understand that when they were speaking about the aura of a woman's face and hands and whatnot, they were only talking about the prayer. And this is the statement of the faqih Shafi'i, Muhammad al-Mazru'i. I mentioned it before, Hudadi 825. He mentions that. He said, "Al-Hanafi, what he said." Ibn Atiyah, from the—now I'm going to move into the Maliki, Ibn Atiyah Maliki, what he said about this issue. And I've got his statements. I've got Shihabuddin al-Nafrawi al-Azhari, who's a Maliki, and what he said about this issue. From the Shafi'i, I've got Bayadawi, what he said about this issue. I've got Taqiyyiddin al-Subki al-Shafi'i. Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, what he said. Al-Qalyubi al-Shafi'i, what he said about this issue. That's the Shafi'i.
Al-Hanabil, I've got Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and he—many places he, Ibn al-Qayyim, he's a student of Ibn Taymiyyah, what he said. Ibn al-Rajab al-Hambari, Ibn al-Buhuti al-Hambari, with idea 100 and 1046 Hijri, that he mentions in his kitab Keshf al-Qana'a. So, Hani, this is a mas'ala fuqaha have mentioned and spoken about. And that's, by the way, it's a podcast, so we can't really go detailed in all of that. Yeah, I've got some statements here, though, and I think it's worth going through them because you made a claim that, obviously, all of their statements were just talking About inside the Salah, Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim al-Misri reported from Imam Malik in al-Mudawwana, Volume number 2, Page number 221. He said concerning the woman in a state of ihram, if she wishes to hang something down her face, i.e., then she can. If she wishes, it doesn’t mean she has to; if she wishes, she can. And if she doesn’t, then she doesn’t have to. That’s not in the Salah, that’s in Ihram. When we say the awrah in the Salah is the same as the awrah in Hajj, and wahakada, so it’s the same. The awrah of Salah is the same as the awrah of the mukhatab—the man who wants to get married has the same awrah in the Salah. The two hands and the face can be seen. So when I say the awrah of Salah, that’s what I mean.
Okay, by the way, I transmitted a statement of an Imam who said that I agree with you. These great Imams, when they spoke about it, it’s all in context. It’s awrah connected to Ibadah, whether it be Hajj, and we refer to that as awrah to Salah. Some scholars of Fuqaha mention it’s called awrah to Salah, awrah to Hajj, awrah to al-bayah. Some scholars mention khitab when a woman wants to get married; it’s the same. It’s the same one. You will never find them speaking about awrah to another. That’s known, that’s Muslim to Malik and Shafi'i and Abu Hanifa. There’s no discussion about that—that a woman has to cover her face.
Okay, so this first half of the podcast, you've actually come with arguments from your side to prove that the niqab is wajib. And from your side, you brought a lot of strong evidences: ayat from the Qur'an, ahadith from the Sunnah, ijma' as you’ve claimed, quotes from the scholars, everything that you can think of. And to be honest with you, it’s been strong. You know, if I’m being fair and just as a third party, it’s been strong. But some people might say, “Are there any evidences on that other side of the equation?” Because even though we agreed at the start that the people who believe niqab is not wajib, it’s not for them to prove it—they don’t have to prove it; rather, you have to prove the obligation. But if that has been proved, if people are watching this and they feel like that has been proved, then can we now disprove it? The fact that maybe there is a time where a woman, for example, was not wearing a face veil in front of the Prophet, and he didn’t correct her? For example, things like this.
Okay, the first hadith I’m going to bring is probably the most clear and the most direct of them. And this is the hadith of Aisha and the Sunnah of Abi Dawood, where Asmaa bint Abi Bakr, the daughter of Aisha and her sister, came in front of the Prophet, and he corrected her dress. He said, “Oh Asmaa, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this.” And when he said "except this," he pointed to his face and in this, he pointed to his hands. This is a clear-cut statement. Unlike some of the, you know, quotes that you brought in the ayat and the understanding of this and that, this is a clear-cut statement from the Messenger himself, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, that the woman can leave the face and the hands uncovered. What do you say about that?
What I want to say, Insha'Allah, is that these points that you’re going to bring are ahadith which are mushkilun.
They are hadiths which are ambiguous, unclear, and they are hadiths that we are commanded to base on the Qur'an, where Allah says:
وَالَّذِي أَنزَلْ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخْرٌ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ فَتِغَالُونَ فِتْنَةً وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَرُ إِلَّا أُولُوا الْأَلْبَابِ (Surah Aal-E-Imran, 3:7)
And I’m going to show that they are not either Sahih (authentic) or they're not Sareeh (clear). They are not authentic or they are not clear in the mawatin al-niza‘ (the point of dispute), what we are discussing.
Hadith Asmaa bint Abi Bakr that you mentioned and Imam Abu Dawood narrated it, and he said after he narrated it.
He said: هَذَا مُرْسَلٌ ("This is a mursal"). Khalid ibn Durayk did not hear from Aisha. Khalid ibn Durayk did not hear from Aisha. So, it's mursal; it's a disconnected narration. The hadith that you mentioned is also narrated by Sa'id ibn Bashir from Qatada, and Khalid ibn Durayk did not hear from Aisha. Abu Dawood mentioned that, and also Abu Hatim al-Razi mentioned that.
Sa'id ibn Bashir, even though he is truthful (saduq), he is weak in his memorization. Ahmad weakened his memorization. Ali ibn al-Madini weakened his memorization. Abu Dawood weakened his memorization. An-Nasa’i weakened his memorization. Even Ibn Ma'in said he is “nothing” (laysa bi shay’), and he has many hadiths which are munqariyat (rejected), which he narrates from Qatadah and Nadramah as Ibn Numayr and Saji mentioned.
Also, this Sa'id ibn Bashir, he sometimes mixes up his narrations. Sometimes he narrates from Qatadah about Khalid ibn Durayk from Aisha, and sometimes he narrates it from Khalid ibn Durayk about Umm Salamah instead of our mother Aisha.
There is a difference of opinion regarding Sa'id ibn Bashir al-Azdi. There is opposition to him. Hisham al-Dastuwai went against Sa'id ibn Bashir, and Hisham al-Dastuwai is considered the most trustworthy of the companions of Qatadah.
He narrated it from Qatadah mursal (disconnected), meaning that Qatadah attributed it to the Prophet ﷺ, but it was wrong for it to be attributed to the Prophet ﷺ. We have an authentic narration from Qatadah's mouth. Shaykh al-Rabbani said that these mursal narrations can actually be strengthened with other narrations. When the hadith is weak, it can be supported by other weak narrations.
There is another chain by at-Tabarani narrated by Haqqi, who narrated from Ibn al-Hayyah about Iyadh ibn Abdullah that he heard from Ibrahim ibn Ubaid ibn Rafah al-Ansari, who said that he heard from his father that Asma’ bint Abi Bakr said: "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ entered upon Aisha bint Abi Bakr and they mentioned this."
This hadith, according to Haqqi, is not da'if (weak), even though it is narrated in al-Sunan al-Kubra. Ibn al-Hayyah is very weak. He is quoted in Kitab Tahdhib al-Kamal, and his teacher, Iyadh, is also weak. Yahya ibn Ma'in weakened him. Al-Bukhari said he was munkar al-hadith (rejected in hadith). Ubayd ibn Rafah has few hadiths, and they are weak.
Now, regarding the authentication of the hadith, this is where it gets important. Shaykh al-Rabbani, and other scholars like al-Bayhaqi, al-Dhahabi, al-Mundhiri, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and al-Shawkani, have declared this hadith authentic but in different ways. The muhaddithun (scholars of hadith) can see things that others might not. Even Shaykh al-Rabbani agrees with you and with the scholars on your side that the first hadith we mentioned is munkar and not acceptable.
But what he's saying is that because we have a mursal narration and it's authentically attributed to Qatadah, Qatadah is a tabi‘i (a generation after the companions). Even though it was wrong for it to be attributed directly to the Prophet ﷺ, we still have an authentic narration from the mouth of Qatadah. Shaykh al-Rabbani said that these mursal narrations can be strengthened with other narrations.
And we don’t disagree with the concept of strengthening a weak hadith with supporting narrations, even if those narrations are also weak. We see this as permissible. In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted ijma‘ (consensus) on this issue, and he used the verse:
أَن تَضِلَّ أَحِدَاهُمَا فَتُذَكِّرَ أَحِدَاهُمَا الْأُخْرَى ("That one of them may err, the other may remind her.") (Surah al-Baqarah, 2:282)
He used that ayah: "That one woman, if she forgets, another woman can remind her." The weakness in this woman's memory can be supported with another woman. They both have vague ideas, but they come together and are used in a state of testimony.
So, all of these narrations, لا يخلو مما قال (none of them are free from what he said). All of them have a point of concern. Bring me any riwaya or sanad of it, except there is a weakness in it. These weaknesses, I don't think personally that I could dismiss, especially with the clear-cut evidences that we have:
وَلَا اللَّهَ تَبَارُكُ تَعَالِيَنَيْ بُكُلِّ أَزْوَاجِكُ وَبَنَاتِكُ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِهِنَّ يُؤْمِنِينَ وَإِذَا سَأَلْتُمُونَ مَتَاعًا فَسْأَلُوهُنَّ مِنْ وَرَاءِ حَيْجَابِ يَوْمِ.
I can't go into its meaning, which I haven't done. I looked at every sanad of it. For example, سعيد بن بشير عن قتادة عن خالد بن دريكن عن عائشة. Then I saw that خالد بن دريكن never heard from عائشة, as noted by أبو داوود and أبو حاتم.
This سعيد بن بشير from الأزدي—I looked at him. He’s صدوق (truthful), no doubt about that, but he is ضعيف (weak) in his حفظ (memory). Ahmad, أسده, ابن المدينة, أبو داوود, and ابن سائِي have all stated this. يحيى بن معين said he is nothing.
Then again, I found that سعيد بن بشير in this individual has منقرات (discrepancies). He narrates from قتادة from عامة السدوسي. But he’s not in the chain that I’m talking about. I’m talking about the chain with هشام, for example, which is authentically attributed to قتادة.
So, the one with your sanad is that هشام الدستوائي. I do say he’s one of the most trustworthy among the companions of قتادة. He is considered to be one of the strongest people when it comes to narrating from قتادة. However, he narrated it مرسلاً (disconnected). قتادة never met the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, and hence the حديث is disconnected. You see that?
Can that مرسل (disconnected) narration not be supported by other supporting evidences?
For example, the حديث that goes from عبد الله بن لحيعة to أسماء بن عميس. Even though that has weaknesses in and of itself, the weakness is not just in ابن لحيعة. It's in Shaykh Ayyaz as well. He has weaknesses in it; يحين معين weakened him. And Bukhari even said منكر الحديث (the hadith is weak). What are you going to do with him? He’s قليل الحديث (narrates few hadiths).
This is my contention. The point I’m trying to come to is that, with all of that, it goes against another حديث. The حديث that goes against the حديث I mentioned from you—where Fatima bint al-Muthir said: "كنا نخمر وجهنا ونحن محرمات" (We would cover our faces while in the state of ihram). But even that’s not صريح (explicit). That’s the problem with it.
But I should say: أسماء بنت أبي بكر's narration—yours is, first of all, weak أصلاً (from the outset). It’s صريح though. No, but this one is clearer. My one—the text is more clear. This one says: "كنا نخمر وجهنا" (We would cover our faces). Yes, but it doesn’t show obligation.
The حديث that you brought says: "أسماء بنت أبي بكر" wasn’t wearing a hijab. Yeah, of course. You’re saying that she was. She entered upon the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, and she had ثياب الرقاق (thin clothing). That’s what you’re bringing.
فأعرض عنها رسوله (And the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم turned away from her), and then he said to her: "يا أسماء، إن المرأة إذا بلغت المحيض" (O أسماء, when a woman reaches menstruation), "لم يصلح أن يرى منها إلا هذا وهذا" (nothing could be seen from her except this and this)—meaning, the face and hands.
Okay, good. جميل. These are the only two things that could be seen from her. Are you there?
So then, what does she do? أسماء بنت أبي بكر? We have your narration, which is already weak because of authenticity. To be honest, according to my humble opinion, Al-Bani is alone on this issue. What about the other scholars that authenticate it with him? Did Bayhaqi authenticate all of it? Some of them said, for example, that it is صحيح مرسلا (authentic as a disconnected narration), this and that.
I’m not sure. So, the point I’m trying to say is: who from the متقدمين (early scholars) said it’s صحيح (authentic)? I’m telling you, Bukhari weakened it. Ahmad, Muhammad weakened it. Abu Dawood weakened it. Abu Hatim al-Razi weakened it. Do you understand my point?
These are early imams. And this is a مسألة (issue) I want to speak about in great detail, إن شاء الله.
I really want to discuss the concept of when the متقدمين (early scholars) speak about تصحيح و تضعيف الحديث (authenticating and weakening hadith). We, as the متأخرين (later scholars), need to look into the issue a bit more, with careful observation إن شاء الله. This is something I will leave for another time.
Okay, there’s one last thing that Shaykh Nasser uses to authenticate a hadith. He says that all three narrators authenticated this hadith. قَتَادَ, for example, states in his interpretation of the verse of جلباب that Allah has placed the requirement to cover the eyebrows, but not the face. This is from Tabari. What does it say?
Allah has placed the requirement to cover the eyebrows, but not the face. Which hadith is this? It is قَتَادَ's statement from Tabari. He’s interpreting the آية (verse) of جلباب. So, this is a clear statement. We spoke about the آية of جلباب before, right?
قَتَادَ says regarding the woman in إحرام (state of pilgrimage): She may let a cloth hang over her face if she wishes. He narrates this through Al-Bayhaqi in an authentic chain of narrations. What does this mean? It’s saying that it’s not obligatory to cover the face; it’s permissible, but not obligatory.
But we’re saying there are other ways she can do it as well. I’m just saying that she has the option to cover it this way, if she wants to. You’re saying that she can use this method or another—different ways. Okay, let’s move on to the next point.
The next hadith is the hadith of فَضل بن عباس. This is reported in Sahih al-Bukhari, so إن شاء الله we don’t need to go into authentication. Actually, this one is not in Bukhari, but we’ll discuss it.
This happened during the حج of the Prophet ﷺ, which we know was towards the end of his life, after the آيات (verses) of حجاب. So, there won’t be any discussion about whether it came before or after. A beautiful woman from the tribe of Khata’am came to ask a question from Allah's Messenger ﷺ. Al-Fadl started looking at her, and her beauty attracted him. The Prophet ﷺ looked behind while Al-Fadl was looking at her. The Prophet ﷺ held out his hand backwards and caught Al-Fadl’s chin, turning his face away. In other riwayat, it’s mentioned that he looked again, and every time, the Prophet ﷺ would turn his chin—almost as if to tell him, "Don’t look there."
The points I want to get from this hadith are:
- First of all, it mentions a beautiful woman. How did the narrator, عبد الله بن عباس, know she was beautiful if her face was covered? That’s number one.
- فَضل بن عباس was looking at her, and her beauty attracted him. This means, again, her face must have been uncovered. Otherwise, why would he keep looking at her beauty?
- The third thing is that the Prophet ﷺ never said to the woman, "You should cover your face." And of course, we know that if anything inappropriate took place in front of the Messenger ﷺ, he would have corrected it. Instead, he turned Al-Fadl’s face as if to say, "Lower your gaze," just as Allah commands men to lower their gaze.
What do you have to say about that one?
You’re right that this hadith is sahih and authentic, but it’s not صريح (explicit) in your points. It’s not the way you're trying to use it to argue that niqab is not obligatory. That’s not correct.
I mean, you don’t have a solid argument to stand on regarding this hadith. This woman, first of all, was a جارية (female servant) presented to the Prophet ﷺ. Where are you getting that from? She was presented to the Prophet ﷺ for marriage. And فَضل on the other hand, saw her, and the Prophet ﷺ turned his face. The reason why her face was showing is that she was in this situation, being presented for marriage.
Can a woman do this during حج? Yes, she is allowed to do this during حج. What’s prohibited during حج is الخطبة (engagement). But presenting oneself for marriage, or looking at someone for marriage, is not prohibited.
The evidence for this is that Abu Ya'la narrated in his Musnad. He said: كُنتُ رَدِيفَ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ وَأَعْرَابِيٌ مَعَهُ إِبْنَةٌ لَهُ (I was riding behind the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and a Bedouin man was with him with his daughter). لَهُ حَسْنَاءٌ بِيُّتِفُلْ (She was a beautiful young woman). He was trying to present her to the Prophet ﷺ for marriage. Then فَجَعَلَ يَعْرِضُهَا لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ (he tried to present her to the Prophet ﷺ).
At that moment, فَجَعَلْتُ أَلْتَفِتُ إِلَيْهَا (I began to look at her), and the Prophet ﷺ took my head and turned it away. This narration is from Abu Ya'la, with an authentic chain.
The hadith in Sahih Bukhari clearly mentions why the woman spoke to the Prophet ﷺ: She said, "O Allah’s Messenger, the obligation of performing حج has become compulsory on my father, who is an old man and cannot sit firmly on his mount." These incidents don’t contradict one another.
You’re saying her father was with her, but he didn’t speak—she spoke. This is permissible because, in such cases, a woman can speak in front of the Prophet ﷺ if needed.
No, I’m with you, but why wouldn’t the father speak if he was with her? Why would the woman speak when her father was present? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for the father to speak?
I feel like you're... Islamically, women and men are both entitled to ask questions. I mean, it's fine if she wants to ask the question. Her father is there—no problem. That's just one answer, by the way. I haven’t seen any narrations mention that she just came to propose for marriage. I just mentioned to you that Abu Ya'la mentions it in his Musnad, not in those of Bukhari or Muslim. There are many narrations, but we have to bring them all together to understand the incident. But what if it’s not sahih? Was there any discussion about whether it was sahih or not? I haven’t come across it. If anybody does believe it, Inshallah, bring it forward, and we’ll discuss it.
Number two: The point in the second response to Hadith al-Qat'amiya is that she’s a jariyya (slave girl). Tirmidhi narrated Abu Sanad with an authentic chain. Ali bin Abi Talib narrated it marfoo'an (connected), and Tahawi narrated it with an authentic chain from Abdullah ibn Abbas. She was a jariyya shabbatun—a young slave girl. The Arabs use the word jariyya to refer to a slave girl, not to harīr (free women). The reason the word jariyya is used is that the girl, being a slave, moves from one person to another, just like the Arabs refer to a boat as jariyya because it moves from one place to another. Allah says: "Indeed, when the water overflowed, We carried you in the jariyya (ark)." And also: "And of His signs are the jawaree (vessels) in the sea like mountains."
So she was a jariyya, as mentioned. She was a slave girl with her father, and she wanted to know if she could perform Hajj on behalf of her father. There are many incidents and narrations that indicate various points. First, she was being presented to the Prophet (peace be upon him) as a potential wife. Of course, the Prophet could take her as a slave girl and then free her and marry her, as he did with Juwayriya.
Second, she was a slave girl, and a man can't look at a woman's face unless she’s being presented to him. That’s why she took off her niqab. If we take the first narration that she wasn’t a slave girl, but was just being presented to the Prophet by her father, this shows that she wasn’t wearing a niqab for that reason, and the Prophet understood that.
Number two: Sorry, earlier in this podcast you said that the men were not attracted to slave girls. You clearly said that, but now you say Fadl ibn Abbas was clearly attracted to her beauty. So how does that fit with your argument? I’m saying to you that I’m taking each situation differently. The first reason is that she was being presented to the Prophet as a free girl. The second reason is that she was a slave girl. Forget the fact that she was being presented to the Prophet.
Okay, let’s talk about the second reason. How could she be a slave girl if Fadl ibn Abbas was attracted to her? And you said the men at that time were not attracted to slave girls. The attraction here is class. I told you this before. A man might see a beautiful girl and say, “When she sells him, she’s from that particular culture or country.” He might say, "Sorry, I don’t want to hear it."
The third point I want to mention is that this hadith isn’t something I’ve seen used by any of the imams from the three noble generations. I haven’t seen it used by any imam of the Salaf in relation to the issue of a free woman uncovering her face. Not one of them. What they focus on is the issue of the man lowering his gaze when looking at a woman. That’s what the Salaf emphasized—lowering the gaze and not looking at a woman.
But if the woman's face is showing, and this issue isn’t found in the works of the Salaf (who scrutinized every issue of Hadith), why did not Malik, Shafi’i, or Ahmad say anything about this? Why?
Four imams of the madhhabs are followed today. One of them uses this hadith. We know these madhhabs and the way that they are. Okay, let’s move on to the next one, which is talking about the hadith of the woman at the Eid Salah and her cheek being shown.
This hadith talks about the Prophet ﷺ addressing the women after praying Salat al-Eid and giving them advice. He mentioned that the majority of help would be taken by women. Who narrated this hadith again? This was in Sahih Muslim, and possibly in other places as well, including Bukhari and Muslim, right? Maybe Bukhari and Muslim. Hadith Jabir, right? Yes, it’s the hadith of Safa'i al-Khaddaini.
A woman with a dark spot on her cheek stood up and asked why that was so. So, a woman now at the Eid Salah—and we previously took that you mentioned the women would only go to Eid Salah with their jilbab—stood up, and they specifically mentioned that she had a dark spot on her cheek. How could her cheek be shown?
Okay, so a few things I need to mention. The first issue I want to mention, Inshallah Ta'ala, is that the hadith states and mentions Safa'i al-Khaddaini, right? The word Safa’i al-Khaddaini refers to a woman who is senior in age. It’s a very important point, Shahid. She’s min al-qawa’id al-nisa’—she’s not a youth.
No, not in my version. Where does it say that? If you look at the wording of the hadith, it does not say Safa’i al-Khaddaini.
Okay, yeah, yeah, I’ve got that. So what does that translate to?
Safa’i al-Khaddaini means a woman who is old in age, with a wrinkled face. To prove that it means a wrinkled face, Imam Ahmad, when he narrated, and Nisa'i narrated the hadith from min safalati al-nisa’i, Safa’i al-Khaddaini. Imam Ahmad narrated a hadith like that, and Nisa’i meant a woman or a person who’s old.
Imam Abu Dawood, sorry, narrated in his Sunan from the hadith of A'uf ibn Malik al-Asja'i that the Prophet ﷺ said: "I and a woman with Safa'a al-Khaddaini (wrinkled face) will be like this on the Day of Judgment," and he gestured with his middle and index fingers. The hadith mentions safa'a.
The hadith I just mentioned now: "I and a woman with safa'a al-Khaddaini..." What does it explain? It means a woman who's aged.
Also, if we take the view that, okay, it was not referring to age, then safa’a might refer to the woman being black, as some scholars say, interpreting this as referring to a slave girl.
Why? Because the majority of the slaves, or a lot of the slaves, were of that color. And it’s not a racist comment I’m trying to make here. I myself am dark and black, but that’s what the narration mentions now.
Okay, the next one I have is the hadith of Aisha in the darkness. This hadith is narrated in Sahih Bukhari and possibly other places as well. It is narrated by Aisha (radiallahu anha), who said: "The believing women, covered with their veiling sheets, used to attend the Fajr prayer with Allah's Messenger ﷺ. After finishing the prayer, they would return to their homes, and nobody could recognize them because of the darkness."
The thing I want from this hadith is that she said nobody could recognize them because of the darkness. If they were covered, their faces were covered. If that was the case, then she wouldn't need to mention, "because of the darkness, nobody could recognize them," because they can’t see their faces.
She specifically mentioned, “because of the darkness.”
So, yeah, the hadith—first of all, number one: Just because it wasn’t mentioned that the women’s faces were uncovered doesn’t mean they weren’t. I don’t see how that’s a leap. Not really, if you think about it. Why would she need to say "because of the darkness"? She said the women's faces couldn’t be recognized because it was known at that time that every woman wore the niqab anyway. So what’s the issue?
Why would she say the woman’s face couldn’t be recognized because of the darkness? That would be a completely unnecessary statement. Do you get where I’m coming from?
Why can we not say, then, that if it's pitch darkness, and a woman’s walking in a place where there’s no light on, she can uncover her niqab, as long as she knows no one can see her?
I’m saying she can uncover her niqab anyway. So I’m saying too, if hypothetically what we say is the case—maybe they didn’t wear their niqab because of the pitch darkness and no one could recognize them.
Not to mention Salah? Yeah, they’re going to the Salah that they’re going to pray, right?
Right? Yeah. So could it mean that we couldn’t recognize each other whilst we were in the prayer?
No, it says—I'm sorry, it couldn’t mean that. After finishing the prayer, they would return to their homes and nobody could recognize them because of the darkness. It’s not talking about in the prayer.
Definitely not. No, but it still doesn’t mention—it still doesn’t prove my point. It dismisses my point. They prayed the Salah, right?
Yes, they prayed the Salah, but you haven’t mentioned it was on the way back on the road. You can have a look at the Arabic; have a look at it yourself if you want.
Yeah, I came across the hadith. But I’m saying to you, it’s at the moment we’re in the masjid, right? Their faces...
No, no, no. It says returning, right?
It doesn't mention they're walking. After finishing their prayer, they would return to their homes. Of course, they would return to their homes after finishing the salah, and nobody could recognize them. So we're obviously talking about this.
To be honest, for me, this is the weakest argument that Shaykh Nasir brought, one of the weakest arguments he brought in the issue of whether niqab is wajib. There is another narration he brings, which also mentions in the Musnad of Abu Ya'la that we would not recognize each other's faces. What he means by this is that it was so dark that the faces were shown, but we couldn't recognize them because it was so dark.
But why would she need to say, "We would not recognize each other's faces" if niqab was wajib, and it was well known that they would all wear niqab? She wouldn't need to say that. Do you understand? Why would she say these things? It's a very strange statement. Maybe there were senior women who didn’t have to wear niqab in there. Maybe there were slave girls she was referring to.
What you’re using is ihtimalat (possibilities), and it can be dismissed. We have clear evidence that says the woman is awrah. We have the hadith where Allah says:
“يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِهِنَّ وَإِذَا سَأَلْتُمُونَ مَتَاعًا فَسْأَلُوهُنَّ مِنْ وَرَاءِ حِجَابِهِنَّ” (Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:53)
It’s sarih—direct to the point—where the Prophet ﷺ is saying it.
The next hadith here is narrated by Anas ibn Malik in Sahih al-Bukhari. The Prophet ﷺ stayed with Safiyyah for three days on the way to Khaybar. Safiyyah was وَكَانَتْ فِي مَنْ—she was among those who were ordered to use a veil. This refers to the wives of the Prophet ﷺ; it was for them but not for all women because the statement says she was from those who were ordered to use the veil—from those.
Now, the word من was used, right? In the hadith: وَكَانَتْ فِي مَنْ دُرِبَ عَلَيْهِ الْحِجَابِ.
So, do you believe hijab is niqab? دُرِبَ عَلَيْهِ الْحِجَابِ. That’s what you believe, right?
[Pause for clarification]
In the ayat of hijab in Surah Al-Ahzab?
Yeah, but I’m saying it... But according to you, it doesn't mean it. If you admit it here, then we can bring all the evidence. No problem, I’m saying it according to you. And you know, like I’m saying according to your interpretation, how doesn't this make sense? She was from those who... Repeat it one more time for me again:
وَكَانَتْ فِي مَنْ دُرِبَ عَلَيْهِ الْحِجَابِ.
She was from those for whom the hijab was wajib. For example, دُرِبَ—is that what it says in the English translation?
No, no. It says Safiyyah was among those who were ordered to use a veil. I mean, the Arabic is better.
Yeah, so that's fine. I don't have an issue with that. She was from them, huh?
So why would someone say she was from them? Doesn’t it indicate that it’s only the wives?
No, he means women who were in a certain condition, for example, women who are on their menstruation, who have to cover themselves. Women who are not on their menstruation don’t have to wear niqab. Elderly women don’t have to wear it.
The context of the hadith, though, is talking about the Prophet’s marriage. So, the Prophet ﷺ stayed with Safiyyah for three days on the way to Khaybar, where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiyyah was among those who were ordered to use a veil. I.e., she was just married, and now she becomes one of those who has to wear a veil. Yeah, there are those who don’t have to wear it.
No, there are those who don’t have to wear it. What I’m trying to get from the context of the hadith is that the marriage took place, and then she had to use a veil. That clearly shows that it’s specific for the wives of the Prophet ﷺ.
But if you say hijab, what about the other parts of the hijab? The face, the hair—so all the other women could show their hair?
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying hijab, according to you, includes the face, right? But it includes everything.
Yeah, it includes everything. So let’s just take it as what I said, or let’s take even yours. Because you’re saying hair is hijab, right? And let’s just take it there.
If we say that, does that mean before that, her hair was showing? No, I’m saying hijab means niqab. It means, according to you, not just niqab though, everything else, right?
So then, if we say she was not wearing anything before that... Okay, but in this context, it’s quite clear because you’re talking about marriage, and we know that the wives of the Prophet ﷺ were distinct in this regard.
But you know, my point is missing. You’re missing my point. I’m just going with you. Okay, I’m saying to you before this, was she not wearing hijab, niqab?
No, you’re saying niqab. He’s reading hijab for me. Hijab means all of it.
I’m saying everything. You see my point? According to me, hijab means not the face covered. Even for me, it means the whole everything. It means the face and everything.
Okay, for you, it means everything except the face.
Okay, so if you're taking my interpretation of it, hijab here means the face, the hair... So was she not wearing any hijab on her hair as well? Do you understand my point?
Not fully, because the word here used is hijab, but obviously it is understood as niqab. No, it’s not. I'll tell you why. Because we know that the Prophet's wives had to wear the niqab; that's something we both agree on. No, they don’t just have to wear niqab. No, not just niqab. I’m talking about everything as well. When hijab is used, we say that the wives of the Prophet ﷺ had to fully cover themselves. We don’t just say niqab, they had to wear it. So they had to cover fully, entirely, including the face. Do you understand my point? Why would they say this? She was from those, I mean, everyone has to wear hijab. Let me come to that point. But before that, she was still covered. Okay, the reason is because she reached puberty, and she was from the women who had to wear it. She was not underage; she was not a young person. That’s number one. Number two, she was a free woman, not a slave. Some of the Prophet's wives were slaves, not free women. So this provides other indications.
Okay, so the summary of the hadith is that she was married to Sa'd ibn Khawla, one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah. He was present at the Battle of Badr and died during the farewell pilgrimage. Again, this shows us that after the ayah of hijab, she gave birth before four months and ten days had passed since her husband’s death. When her nifas ended, Abu As-Sanabil, a man from Banu Abd al-Dar, went to her and saw that she had adorned herself. So what Shaykh Nasir has taken from this hadith is that he saw that she had adorned herself, meaning her face was uncovered. That’s number one. He said, “Perhaps you want to get married before four months and ten days have passed. It looks like you want to get married.” She said, “When I heard that from Abu As-Sanabil, I went to the Messenger of Allah and told him my story.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “It is permissible for you to marry when you give birth.” So again, what he’s trying to say is that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ didn’t correct her and say, “You need to cover your face,” or anything like that.
There are many responses to give, but I’m just going to stick to one simple one. The first one is that Subai'at al-Aslamiyya, she was a mawla, a slave girl. She wasn’t a free woman. And the scholars of Seerah mention that Ibn Ishaq said that Ibn Hisham said that Al-Waqidi mentioned that Ibn al-Hibban mentioned that Ibn Abd al-Barr mentioned that Al-Baladiriyu mentioned that Ibn al-Farajil, Ibn al-Jawzi mentioned that Muhammad ibn al-Habib mentioned that Ibn al-Athir, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned that Asal, ishi min kalbin or ishi min madja'in or ishi mawla min mawarif harisin. There’s dispute. So that’s the quickest and fastest response I can give in that issue. Let’s go on to the next one.
The hadith of Sahl ibn Sa'ad: A woman came to Allah’s Messenger ﷺ and said, “Messenger of Allah, I’ve come to entrust myself to you,” like she’s proposing to him, which is obviously what's being said. Allah’s Messenger ﷺ saw her and looked closely at her from head to toe. He then lowered his head. When the woman saw that he had made no decision in regard to her, she sat down. Then a person from amongst the companions stood up and said, “Messenger of Allah ﷺ, marry her to me.” And then the hadith goes on, but this is the main point I want to get from it.
So, we have a woman now, and yes, she’s proposing for marriage, but she’s uncovered her face, as per the hadith, because the Prophet ﷺ looked at her face and then looked her up and down as well. And the companion was witnessing this as well. Now, you said earlier that a woman can obviously uncover her face when proposing marriage, and she can do this in the open, in the market, or in the street. No, this hadith that you mentioned, the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa’ad al-Sa’idi, doesn’t show her face was uncovered. It just shows that the Prophet ﷺ looked towards her face direction. And what works against you in this hadith is that the Prophet ﷺ looked at her from the bottom of her legs and then raised his head.
If we say that the reason why he looked at her face was because it was uncovered, then I could say to you, why did he look at her legs? Were they uncovered as well? And we already took from the hadith of Ibn Umar ﷺ that the Prophet ﷺ said, "Whoever drags their garment out of pride, Allah will not look at them on the Day of Judgment." And she said, "O Messenger of Allah, what should women do with their hems?” He said, “Let them lower it by a span and not exceed it." This is a clear evidence showing that women must cover their legs, and there is consensus on this.
So just the fact that the Prophet looked in that direction doesn’t mean that her face was uncovered. Secondly, maybe she presented herself to the Prophet ﷺ to show him how she looks, and she took off her niqab because she wanted the Prophet ﷺ to see her for marriage. This was a specific situation for marriage. But there were other companions there as well. Maybe she didn’t intend for the angle that she was standing at, or maybe she didn’t intend for the other companions to see her. Yes, and it’s a restricted issue to the issue of marriage.
Okay, the last one: The hadith in Sahih Muslim about adultery. Why are all those narrations only about hajj, marriage, and specific situations like these? Outside these situations, it’s different from within these situations.
No problem. Sahih Muslim discusses that the adultery of the eye is the lustful look. The question is: How can a man look lustfully if a woman is fully covered from head to toe? A man can look lustfully by just seeing things become apparent from her. He looks at those things, or he looks at external things, or when a woman’s hijab becomes loose or when parts of her body unintentionally become visible. A man could also be evil enough to try and look at women when they are in their homes, uncovered, seeking those moments, such as when they’re in the kitchen, opening doors, etc. These are also potential moments.
Okay, I’m conscious that we’ve spoken for a long time. I’m going to move on to some closing questions and then give you an opportunity to summarize, inshallah, and we can close out the podcast. The first question I have is: We mentioned at the start that this is a valid difference of opinion. It’s the first time on the hot seat. I think we’ve discussed an issue which genuinely has a difference of opinion that is valid. The question is: If there is a situation like this, can the person just pick whatever side they want if it’s a valid difference of opinion? If the person doesn’t have knowledge, they’re low in terms of deen, and they don’t have much understanding, if they trust a person they know, and their local imam says, “No problem,” but if a woman’s watching the podcast and says, “I don’t really want to wear niqab, it’s a valid difference of opinion,” can she just stick to it?
No, she has to look into it, and the opinion she takes must be built on what she believes is the strongest in terms of evidence.
Okay, but some people can’t read or understand evidences.
They could just take the fatwa of their shaykh. They just blindfold that.
Okay. What if a woman believes niqab is wajib but she fears being attacked? Like in some Western countries. You know. You have people who are specifically targeting women with niqab. Is this an excuse not to wear it?
If that woman believes it's wajib then she should do hijrah. She can't practice her religion. It's from the symbols of Islam. If she can't no longer practice her deen of Islam. It's clear for her that she can't no longer live in that country. That's if she believes it's wajib. And we did a podcast on that.
But what if she's from those who aren't able to make hijrah? Where the fact that she's not married. She's under the care of her parents financially. Whatever reason. InshaAllah. We'll just stay at home inshaAllah. And make dua that Allah lifts this stress and hardship from me now.
What if it's not a fear of safety. But she fears that she's never going to get a job. She's always going to be seen as an outcast of society. Is this a good enough reason to take the niqab off. So she can progress with her career?
InshaAllah. There's many places she can work at in Islamic environments. You know there's opportunities. If you rely on Allah you take the precautions Allah will open all paths and means for you.
Okay. I want to get on some fiqh questions between husband and wife now.
If a woman believes the niqab is wajib. She believes it's obligatory. But the husband doesn't. And he commands her not to wear it. No she doesn't obey him. She doesn't obey. If she believes it's wajib. She has to wear it. Wear it. Even if the husband doesn't agree with it. Even if her parents tell her not to wear it. Still. She still has to wear her niqab. Okay. That's again if she believes it's wajib.
Okay. What if it's the other way around? The husband believes it's wajib. But the wife doesn't. And he's telling her. He can't force her on it. Is the husband not? How do you reconcile that with the husband being the shepherd. And in control of his family. And. Yeah that's a view he holds. She's researched this issue. She's come to the conclusion. That niqab is not wajib. He can't force that opinion onto her. He can explain it to her. And encourage her if he wants to. But he can't enforce it onto her. No.
Okay. I'm gonna. Let's go into the summary. Before we close it out the podcast.
If you have anything to say. I'm going to give a summary this time as well. To represent the side that I've been representing. And then I'll give you as the final say to have.
No, I think you should summarize all of it. No, no, no, no. I'm only going to be summarizing it from my side. I think I've said everything I need to say. From my side. I think that the argument from the scholars on my side. From the scholars on my side. So it's going to be a very one-sided summary. So maybe you'll change your mind after the end of the summary.
So the scholars who believe that the niqab is not wajib, they say that it is part of Islam. It is recommended. It's encouraged for the sisters. But they don't go that extra step and say that it is obligatory. And they say that in an issue like this, the burden of proof is obviously, as we agreed at the start, upon the one who makes it obligatory. And this is an issue that affects so many people. It affects half of mankind if not more, because the majority of mankind are women. And affects them on such a frequent basis. Anytime they leave their house. And even when they're inside their house, if people come to visit them who are non-mahram. And it affects them whether they're rich, whether they're poor, whether they're black, whether they're white, whether they're Arab, non-Arab, whether they're married, whether they're single.
This is an issue that is huge in the religion of Islam. And we know that our religion, and one of the proofs for our religion being true, is that it explains every single aspect of life in detail. And indeed, that's some of the reasons why, for example, some of the companions embraced Islam, because it explains things like the etiquette of going to the toilet. Yet we have this issue. And it is not one single clear-cut command or prohibition in these words from Allah or His Messenger Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam, that tells these millions and millions and millions of women, "Cover your face" or "Do not reveal your face." There's not a single statement like that. Instead, we have ayat. We have ahadith which have to be understood in a certain way. We take this word, and the meaning of this word is that. And this scholar said it was this. And this scholar said it was that. And of course, the principle in Al-Fiqh is: إِذَا وَرَدَ الْإِحْتِمَالِ بَطَلَ الْإِسْتِدْلَالِ (If there is an evidence that could be interpreted this way or it could be interpreted this way, then it cannot be used as a substantial proof to bring an argument forward). If that discussion stopped there, and we went through all of the ayat and the ahadith in that fashion, and it got to the conclusion that there's not one single clear-cut text, then there's nothing that the side that I'm representing has to do after that.
Thereupon the asal. However, it doesn't stop there. They actually bring forward ahadith from their side that we discussed in the second half of this podcast, which obviously you've responded to. But they bring ahadith that they believe categorically and clearly show that the niqab is not wajib, because there were women at the time of the Messenger ﷺ that had their faces uncovered, and he didn't command them to cover it. And we went through them in the second half of the podcast. Having said that, there are strong proofs on both sides. You have your proofs. They have their proofs. And the principle in Islam is ideally you'd reconcile between the evidences. And there is a way of reconciling between the evidences. And that is to say, the niqab is strongly, strongly, strongly recommended, but it is not obligatory. That's a summary from this side of the table.
I want to give you the opportunity, if you'd like to take it. I know you've done a good job Masha'Allah throughout the podcast. If you just want to summarize it from your side, I'm happy for you to do that. And my main focus is that there are clear-cut evidences and authentic evidences. I mentioned seven ayat from the Quran. Eight ahadith. I mentioned some of the ulema. They have transmitted ijma' qawli. I also mentioned that this is an ijma' which is amali. That the salaf as-salih and all of the women at that time were wearing niqab. Also, I mentioned that this issue of Niqab.
It's a matter that's connected to fitna (trials and tribulations). And the biggest fitna of women is the face, number one. That's the first point. Then everything else comes right after it. So our sisters should really focus highly on covering themselves up, wearing the way that clothing that Allah sanctioned for them.
If you think today, as a sister, if you think today that you are going to wear what you want, then I promise you even before you leave this world, the shroud that you will be covered with, your face will be covered, your hair will be covered. So there's a lot of virtues in being a person who's covered and being shy. And the clothing Allah gave you is a blessing. You're going to be asked about it on the Day of Judgment. Make sure that you cover yourself.
Our mother Aisha, you know, she was buried. The Prophet was buried in her house. And then her father was then buried after the Prophet. Then the narration mentions when Umar was buried in that place, she said, "I used to enter into my house." Aisha saying this, "The Prophet was in this. And my father. I will take off my clothing. I now then say, 'I used to say that this is my father. This is my husband.' That's why I'll take it off." When Umar was buried with them, for Wallahi (I swear by Allah), I swear by Allah, I never entered it. And I did this because of shyness. So sisters, this shyness is a quality that's needed from each and every one of you. Cover yourselves.
What shocks me, and I'm going to conclude with that, is that Ibn Abbas mentioned to his students one day. He said, "Shall I not show you a woman from the women of Jannah?" And I'll talk specifically. He said, "Of course, tell me." He said, "The black woman over there, she came to the Prophet and she said..." And by the way, this is one of the evidences. They used to say that the woman's face was uncovered. But that's not strong. You can tell a woman's color from her face, even if she wears niqab.
She said, "I am a woman who is... and who faints. And I have epilepsy. And my aura shows." I think that's the reason it's not strong anyway. Some scholars, they said her illness was why she was seen [in that state] as well. Then the Prophet, "Maybe if you are patient, you will get Jannah. What if you wish Jannah? I will make dua for you and you are here and Allah cures you?" She said, "Asbir (I will be patient)." She said, "I'll be patient." She said after that, she said, "But what about my aura showing?" She's sick. My aura is showing. Our ones are healthy and their aura is showing.
And the concept of taking clothes from the people and their skin showing was a punishment for Adam and Hawa. That was what Shaytan wanted to achieve from all of that. So sisters, Insha'Allah (if Allah wills), be patient upon your clothing. Don't let the West, Wallahi (I swear by Allah), fool you and lie to you and deceive you. Be conscious of what you wear and the way you dress.
And don't get fooled by the 20 or 30 or 40 or even 70 years that you live in this dunya (world). What waits you on the other day. On the other side is very big. Ask Allah to keep us steadfast on this, the haq (truth) and the truth. And to forgive our brothers and sisters wherever they are in the world. Also, I don't want to use this as a means in no way, shape, or form to belittle sisters. You know, ridicule sisters.
That's not my aim. And I know the hearts of us are between the two fingers of Allah. Allah tosses and turns [them] in the way He wishes.
So I'm going to conclude there, Insha'Allah Ta'ala (if Allah wills, the Exalted). Subhanaka Allahumma wa bihamdika. Ashhadu an la ilaha illa anta. Astaghfiruka wa atubu ilayk (Glory be to You, O Allah, and all praise is due to You. I bear witness that there is no deity except You. I seek forgiveness from You and repent to You).
