Discussion: The interpretation of “And they shall not display their adornment except what appears thereof” as being the face and the hands.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : So what is the meaning of [An-Nur 24:31] Did not Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn 'Umar say “It is the face and the hands”?
The questioner : No, this is not established from them.
The Shaykh : how
The questioner : It is not established from Ibn 'Abbas, nor from Ibn 'Umar, nor from any of the Companions in this matter, except from 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, who said: “The clothing, the anklet, and the headband”.
The Shaykh : This is a great error, and this is where you have gone astray. This is what we take issue with in everyone who has written in this field, and especially our former student, Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Sindi, in his treatise on this issue. For he is supposed to be more knowledgeable and well-versed than others. When he came to the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas, or more precisely, the athar of Ibn 'Abbas—Ya Jamal, have you all agreed on something now?
The questioner : May Allah will it
The Shaykh : Fine, when he came to the athar of Ibn 'Abbas, he mentioned it via the well-known route in Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir and Ibn Jarir’s Tafsir, which includes Ibn Hurmuz, and that is weak. Meanwhile, the athar in Ibn Abi Shaybah’s Musannaf is transmitted with two chains; this is one of them, and the other has a sound chain. He also narrated it with a third sound chain from Ibn 'Umar, with the wording: “The covering of the face and the hands... and what appears thereof”.
And strangely, this is not new to me, because I had mentioned that in... And yet, they all turned away and ignored this fact. No one refers back to it except one Egyptian.
The questioner : What did you cite, Shaykh, regarding hijab from Ibn Abi Shaybah’s Musannaf?
The Shaykh : How? How?
The questioner : Regarding hijab, I only cited Sunan al-Bayhaqi.
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : In Sunan al-Bayhaqi, its chain is weak.
The Shaykh : No, no. If it were about hijab here, we might perhaps recall it now. It is permissible that it was not attributed to Ibn Abi Shaybah, but it exists from Ibn 'Umar with a sound chain. What does mentioning Ibn Abi Shaybah’s chain mean? Only one of the Egyptian young men who wrote on this topic did so. Even so, he made excuses and clung to declaring this hadith defective due to a man whose name I have forgotten, al-Rabi' ibn so-and-so, who is one of al-Bukhari’s narrators. Even so, as is the custom of many people who do not free themselves from being influenced by personal bias or by a school of thought—as you know, when a narrator is disputed, the person with bias can authenticate him or weaken him, because he takes the authentication and weakens the criticism, or does the opposite.
He does not place before him the hadith methodology that criticism (jarh) takes precedence over vindication (ta'dil), provided that the reason is clear, and then, with its clarity, that the critic is severe, and so on. Few do this. Only this Egyptian, with a small treatise—I have also forgotten its name—on hijab.
The questioner : Close.
The Shaykh : how
The questioner : The treatise is close.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Al-'Adawi, Mustafa al-'Adawi.
The Shaykh : No, it is not the size of al-'Adawi’s. His is small; this one is long.
The questioner : Hasan 'Abd al-Hamid, 'Udhat al-Hijab, green cover.
The Shaykh : No, no. 'Udhat al-Hijab is also our student. This is Muhammad Isma'il. This is three volumes, three large parts. No, this is a treatise.
The questioner : Hasan 'Abd al-Hamid is his name.
The student: From Egypt.
Another student: Ahmad Husayn, from here, Shaykh, from al-Qasim.
The student: Its color is yellow, the cover is Egyptian.
The Shaykh : Perhaps, by Allah, perhaps this is it. Allah knows best. Hasan 'Abd al-Hamid. The point is, he declared the hadith defective with something that has no defect at all, and instead clung to the weakening by one of the hadith scholars, perhaps Ibn Ma'in.
not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof
ولا يبدين زينتهن إلا ما ظهر منهاThe questioner : No, this is not established from them.
The Shaykh : how
The questioner : It is not established from Ibn 'Abbas, nor from Ibn 'Umar, nor from any of the Companions in this matter, except from 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, who said: “The clothing, the anklet, and the headband”.
The Shaykh : This is a great error, and this is where you have gone astray. This is what we take issue with in everyone who has written in this field, and especially our former student, Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Sindi, in his treatise on this issue. For he is supposed to be more knowledgeable and well-versed than others. When he came to the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas, or more precisely, the athar of Ibn 'Abbas—Ya Jamal, have you all agreed on something now?
The questioner : May Allah will it
The Shaykh : Fine, when he came to the athar of Ibn 'Abbas, he mentioned it via the well-known route in Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir and Ibn Jarir’s Tafsir, which includes Ibn Hurmuz, and that is weak. Meanwhile, the athar in Ibn Abi Shaybah’s Musannaf is transmitted with two chains; this is one of them, and the other has a sound chain. He also narrated it with a third sound chain from Ibn 'Umar, with the wording: “The covering of the face and the hands... and what appears thereof”.
And strangely, this is not new to me, because I had mentioned that in... And yet, they all turned away and ignored this fact. No one refers back to it except one Egyptian.
The questioner : What did you cite, Shaykh, regarding hijab from Ibn Abi Shaybah’s Musannaf?
The Shaykh : How? How?
The questioner : Regarding hijab, I only cited Sunan al-Bayhaqi.
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : In Sunan al-Bayhaqi, its chain is weak.
The Shaykh : No, no. If it were about hijab here, we might perhaps recall it now. It is permissible that it was not attributed to Ibn Abi Shaybah, but it exists from Ibn 'Umar with a sound chain. What does mentioning Ibn Abi Shaybah’s chain mean? Only one of the Egyptian young men who wrote on this topic did so. Even so, he made excuses and clung to declaring this hadith defective due to a man whose name I have forgotten, al-Rabi' ibn so-and-so, who is one of al-Bukhari’s narrators. Even so, as is the custom of many people who do not free themselves from being influenced by personal bias or by a school of thought—as you know, when a narrator is disputed, the person with bias can authenticate him or weaken him, because he takes the authentication and weakens the criticism, or does the opposite.
He does not place before him the hadith methodology that criticism (jarh) takes precedence over vindication (ta'dil), provided that the reason is clear, and then, with its clarity, that the critic is severe, and so on. Few do this. Only this Egyptian, with a small treatise—I have also forgotten its name—on hijab.
The questioner : Close.
The Shaykh : how
The questioner : The treatise is close.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Al-'Adawi, Mustafa al-'Adawi.
The Shaykh : No, it is not the size of al-'Adawi’s. His is small; this one is long.
The questioner : Hasan 'Abd al-Hamid, 'Udhat al-Hijab, green cover.
The Shaykh : No, no. 'Udhat al-Hijab is also our student. This is Muhammad Isma'il. This is three volumes, three large parts. No, this is a treatise.
The questioner : Hasan 'Abd al-Hamid is his name.
The student: From Egypt.
Another student: Ahmad Husayn, from here, Shaykh, from al-Qasim.
The student: Its color is yellow, the cover is Egyptian.
The Shaykh : Perhaps, by Allah, perhaps this is it. Allah knows best. Hasan 'Abd al-Hamid. The point is, he declared the hadith defective with something that has no defect at all, and instead clung to the weakening by one of the hadith scholars, perhaps Ibn Ma'in.