What is your response to those who say that the hadith of 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her), that a woman is 'awrah (the part of the body that must be covered) except for her face and hands, is munqati' (a report with a broken chain)?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: Regarding the hadith of 'Aishah...
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner: I mean, I read in books regarding the hadith of 'Aishah
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: In the one where her face and hands are not seen, it says about Khalid ibn Jarij, and Khalid ibn Jarij is munqati' (a report with a broken chain), this hadith is da'if (a weak hadith)
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner: This is regarding Shaykh Salih ibn al-Uthaymeen
The Shaykh : Regarding what?
The questioner: Shaykh Salih ibn al-Uthaymeen, I mean, he says that it is haram (forbidden)
The Shaykh : Yes, first of all, my sister, I do not know if you have looked at my book *The Muslim Woman's Hijab* mentioned earlier. Well, if you have looked at it, did you not read that I explained the hadith with the same 'illah (the operative cause of a ruling) that you are quoting from Shaykh Salih? If so, you did not read it.
The questioner: I do not know, but...
The Shaykh : Yes? I mentioned this hadith in the same book about twenty years ago and clarified it, because this is my specialization in hadith, by the grace of Allah. I clarified that this hadith has two 'illahs (operative causes of a ruling), not just one. The first 'illah (operative cause of a ruling) is the one you mentioned earlier, which is the disconnection (munqati').
And the second 'illah (operative cause of a ruling) is that there is a man in it who has weakness in his memorization, and his name is Sa'id ibn Bashir. So we mentioned, based on the principle stated by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), where he says: The difference between the people of the Sunnah and the people of innovation is that the people of the Sunnah mention what is in their favor and what is against them, whereas the people of innovation mention what is in their favor and ignore what is against them.
So if I wanted to argue with this hadith, I would not have mentioned its isnad (the chain of narration) first, and then I would not have clarified its two 'illahs (operative causes of a ruling) second. But along with this clarification, I mentioned what supports and strengthens it and takes hold of its support. I said that it has a shahid (a corroborating narration) from the hadith of Asma bint Abi Bakr.
As for the first hadith, it is from the hadith of 'Aishah. This hadith from 'Aishah is the one with the two 'illahs (operative causes of a ruling). So I mentioned a shahid (a corroborating narration) for it from the hadith of Asma bint Abi Bakr. This strengthens the first hadith. And when you mentioned what is from Ibn Uthaymeen, I know Ibn Uthaymeen, and I know al-Tuwijiri, and I know their books that they wrote on this issue. But the truth is that they did not cover the issue from the hadithical perspective in terms of research and knowledge. And suffice it for you now as an example this which you asked about: they mention the hadith of 'Aishah and do not mention the hadith of Asma. And the hadith of Asma is a shahid (a corroborating narration) for the hadith of 'Aishah. And the second thing by which I supported the hadith of 'Aishah, I said that al-Hafiz Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi authenticated this hadith because the practice of the Companions was carried out and some of the Companions issued a fatwa (a scholarly legal ruling) based on it, so that was evidence (dalil) for the establishment of this hadith.
The second shahid (corroborating narration), which is the authentication of Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi of the hadith, they do not address mentioning it. The first shahid (corroborating narration), the hadith of Asma, they do not address mentioning it either. And at that time, we say, as the Arab said long ago:
"Sa'd brought them in, and Sa'd was wrapped up *** This is not, O Sa'd, how camels are brought in"
It is not permissible for us to mention the hadith that has weakness and ignore what strengthens it and takes hold of its support. And it would suffice, if we did not have the hadith of 'Aishah and the hadith of Asma and the authentication of al-Hafiz al-Bayhaqi, that Ibn 'Umar and Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) said that the face and hands of a woman are not 'awrah (the part of the body that must be covered).
Despite that, we do not say, as some say, and I have refuted them, that covering a woman's face is a bid'ah (religious innovation). We say, no, covering a woman's face is a mustahabb (recommended) sunnah (recommended practice). But we do not say, as we said at the beginning of the discussion, that it is haram (forbidden). We do not say this, because prohibition is a serious matter, and very serious. Perhaps I have answered your question, and there is nothing else.
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner: I mean, I read in books regarding the hadith of 'Aishah
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: In the one where her face and hands are not seen, it says about Khalid ibn Jarij, and Khalid ibn Jarij is munqati' (a report with a broken chain), this hadith is da'if (a weak hadith)
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner: This is regarding Shaykh Salih ibn al-Uthaymeen
The Shaykh : Regarding what?
The questioner: Shaykh Salih ibn al-Uthaymeen, I mean, he says that it is haram (forbidden)
The Shaykh : Yes, first of all, my sister, I do not know if you have looked at my book *The Muslim Woman's Hijab* mentioned earlier. Well, if you have looked at it, did you not read that I explained the hadith with the same 'illah (the operative cause of a ruling) that you are quoting from Shaykh Salih? If so, you did not read it.
The questioner: I do not know, but...
The Shaykh : Yes? I mentioned this hadith in the same book about twenty years ago and clarified it, because this is my specialization in hadith, by the grace of Allah. I clarified that this hadith has two 'illahs (operative causes of a ruling), not just one. The first 'illah (operative cause of a ruling) is the one you mentioned earlier, which is the disconnection (munqati').
And the second 'illah (operative cause of a ruling) is that there is a man in it who has weakness in his memorization, and his name is Sa'id ibn Bashir. So we mentioned, based on the principle stated by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), where he says: The difference between the people of the Sunnah and the people of innovation is that the people of the Sunnah mention what is in their favor and what is against them, whereas the people of innovation mention what is in their favor and ignore what is against them.
So if I wanted to argue with this hadith, I would not have mentioned its isnad (the chain of narration) first, and then I would not have clarified its two 'illahs (operative causes of a ruling) second. But along with this clarification, I mentioned what supports and strengthens it and takes hold of its support. I said that it has a shahid (a corroborating narration) from the hadith of Asma bint Abi Bakr.
As for the first hadith, it is from the hadith of 'Aishah. This hadith from 'Aishah is the one with the two 'illahs (operative causes of a ruling). So I mentioned a shahid (a corroborating narration) for it from the hadith of Asma bint Abi Bakr. This strengthens the first hadith. And when you mentioned what is from Ibn Uthaymeen, I know Ibn Uthaymeen, and I know al-Tuwijiri, and I know their books that they wrote on this issue. But the truth is that they did not cover the issue from the hadithical perspective in terms of research and knowledge. And suffice it for you now as an example this which you asked about: they mention the hadith of 'Aishah and do not mention the hadith of Asma. And the hadith of Asma is a shahid (a corroborating narration) for the hadith of 'Aishah. And the second thing by which I supported the hadith of 'Aishah, I said that al-Hafiz Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi authenticated this hadith because the practice of the Companions was carried out and some of the Companions issued a fatwa (a scholarly legal ruling) based on it, so that was evidence (dalil) for the establishment of this hadith.
The second shahid (corroborating narration), which is the authentication of Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi of the hadith, they do not address mentioning it. The first shahid (corroborating narration), the hadith of Asma, they do not address mentioning it either. And at that time, we say, as the Arab said long ago:
"Sa'd brought them in, and Sa'd was wrapped up *** This is not, O Sa'd, how camels are brought in"
It is not permissible for us to mention the hadith that has weakness and ignore what strengthens it and takes hold of its support. And it would suffice, if we did not have the hadith of 'Aishah and the hadith of Asma and the authentication of al-Hafiz al-Bayhaqi, that Ibn 'Umar and Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) said that the face and hands of a woman are not 'awrah (the part of the body that must be covered).
Despite that, we do not say, as some say, and I have refuted them, that covering a woman's face is a bid'ah (religious innovation). We say, no, covering a woman's face is a mustahabb (recommended) sunnah (recommended practice). But we do not say, as we said at the beginning of the discussion, that it is haram (forbidden). We do not say this, because prohibition is a serious matter, and very serious. Perhaps I have answered your question, and there is nothing else.