What is the limit of a woman's awrah (the part of the body that must be covered) in the presence of other women, and what is your opinion of the claim that a woman's awrah in the presence of other women is from the navel to the knee?

The questioner : Shaykh, a question regarding a woman's dress in the presence of other women: what is the limit of a woman's awrah in the presence of other women? Also regarding dress, because short clothing has started to spread among us, and women wearing trousers. Of course, if she is outside, she wears an abaya, and so on, this is known. But among women, you might find her wearing trousers, or you might find her wearing something short, down to below the knee. Also regarding the chest, up to above the breasts, or similar. So what is the Shari'ah limit of a woman's awrah in the presence of other women? And also the awrah of a man, if there is evidence that it is from the navel to the knee...?

The Shaykh : This is an invalid opinion.

The questioner : The one that is from the navel to the knee?

The Shaykh : This is one of the most invalid things said in some books of Islamic jurisprudence.

The questioner : ... We read it in books of Islamic jurisprudence.

The Shaykh : It is one of the most invalid things said in some books of Islamic jurisprudence for two reasons. The first reason is that there is no text in the Sunnah, let alone in the Qur'an, that a woman's awrah in the presence of a woman is like a man's awrah in the presence of a man. This is merely an analogical reasoning (qiyas), comparing a woman's awrah in the presence of a woman to a man's awrah in the presence of a man. Glory be to Allah! First, there is no text. Second, it contradicts the text of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The Sunnah, as you know, is: , "A woman is an awrah," meaning her entire body is an awrah. The Qur'an says: وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof[An-Nur 24:31]. This is what the scholars of exegesis call the "apparent adornment." And there is "hidden adornment," which is His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ [ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ ] أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons[An-Nur 24:31] to the end of the verse. The scholars of exegesis differ in interpreting "adornment": is the intended meaning the adornment itself, or the locations of the adornment? This second meaning is what is intended, from the perspective, as the scholars of rhetoric say, of "mentioning the state in place of the location." The state, for example, is the adornment here or there, and the location is the neck, the ears, and so on. There is no doubt that this meaning, i.e., the intended location, means the location of the adornment. This is most similar to His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He), which they call a "deleted possessive," estimated to be: وَاسْأَلِ الْقَرْيَةَ الَّتِي كُنَّا فِيهَا وَالْعِيرَ الَّتِي أَقْبَلْنَا فِيهَا And ask the city in which we were and the caravan in which we came[Yusuf 12:82] "the village" means "the people of the village," "the caravan" means "the people of the caravan." Similarly here, "their adornment" means "the location of their adornment." And this is undoubtedly more eloquent and more jurisprudentially sound. Why? Because if it were interpreted literally as the adornment itself, regardless of the location, then if there is no adornment, it would be permissible to show it, based on the opposite implication.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Ah, if there is no adornment, it is permissible? But if it is interpreted as the location, then even if there is no adornment, this is the location of the adornment, so it is not permissible to show the adornment, nor its location, even without adornment. So when He (Glorified and Exalted is He) mentioned the other adornment, which is the hidden adornment, meaning in the presence of non-mahrams, it is not permissible to show it. But in the presence of the mahrams mentioned in the context of the verse, it is permissible to show the locations of the adornment, whether they are adorned or not. Now, here we are approaching the answer to the question: what is above the navel, here for example, and here? Is this a location of adornment? If so, it is part of the awrah. How can it be said that the awrah is from here to here? And by analogy, what is under the armpit? Is it a location of adornment? It is not a location of adornment. So the back is not a location of adornment. The locations of adornment are well known: the head, the ears, the neck, what? The wrist, the upper arm, and so on. These are the locations considered as "apparent adornment," the locations that it is permissible for a woman to show to her mahrams. Anything else remains on the original rule: a woman is an awrah, a woman is an awrah. Once we know this Qur'anic and Prophetic reality, we have mentioned in the book "The Hijab of the Muslim Woman" the conditions of hijab, which are eight. Among them is that it must not be transparent, and that it must not be tight-fitting on the limbs. These trousers that women, especially today, wear, which are tight on the thighs and buttocks, and perhaps more than that—no one who says that it is permissible to wear this says so as a Muslim, absolutely not. Therefore, a woman appearing in this tight clothing that is tight even on the awrah, by the opposite implication of the Book and the Sunnah, between the navel and the knee: the thighs are an awrah. If it is not tight in these tight trousers, this incites more than the natural body might incite for some women. For example, some women's skin may not be enticing, but the color of the clothing is enticing. This adds fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) to fitnah.
The student : You know the situation...
Another student : Outside it is marble, inside it is soot.

The Shaykh : So you have understood the answer to the question. Is this clear? Yes.