If fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) is confirmed to occur because a woman uncovers her face, what is the ruling?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Is it obligatory for her to cover her face?
The Shaykh : You are saying that the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) has been confirmed.
The questioner : I am tempted by her, for example, meaning she is very beautiful?
The Shaykh : If you are tempted by her, it is obligatory for one of you to turn away. Is it obligatory or not?
It is permissible for the one who is tempted to flee from the one who tempted him.
The questioner : And she does not cover up.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory for her to flee; it is not a matter of just covering her face, she must flee. But you!
The questioner : Because my professor, a Syrian doctor, taught me that he does not see the permissibility of uncovering the face, but he says: if there is fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), she must cover her face, not as if it were an 'awrah (the part of the body that must be covered), not on the basis that it is an 'awrah (the part of the body that must be covered), but because of the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) "Repelling harm is more important than bringing about benefit".
The Shaykh : There is a difference, Professor, between when it is feared that fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) will occur, and when the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) has actually occurred.
The questioner : Fine.
The Shaykh : If the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) has occurred, it is not just covering up; one must turn one's back. But if it is feared that fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) might occur and it is also feared that it might not, why do we restrict people in something that Allah and His Messenger have not forbidden? This is the point to which a scholar resorts when he does not find compelling evidence obligating the Muslim woman to cover her face. Like the Imam, he comes and says: if the time becomes corrupt and fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) is feared. So in the hadith of al-Khath'amiah, what is his position? Did the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) not exist?
Why did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) not say to these people!
The questioner : I see a takhrij (tracing a hadith to its sources) by some scholars saying: that this al-Khath'amiah was perhaps in a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage), or another possibility: it was before the revelation of the hijab (the covering prescribed for women). How do we respond to this?
The Shaykh : This was in the last year of his life (peace be upon him). But what are the first ones saying? What did you say?
The questioner : That she was in a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage).
The Shaykh : In a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage), yes. So it is strange that this is said. Did you not say just now the hadith of Aisha that she used to let her veil hang down? She was not in a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage)?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Why did the Messenger not order her to let her veil hang down over her face? This is the hadith mentioned by Muslim. And regarding the application of hadiths as they came, and refuting the objections that are not valid: she was in a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage), yes, she was in a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage). He ordered her to let it hang down. If there is fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) between you and her, let it hang down. But he said to al-Fadl, and he did not say to her "cover up," meaning: with the permissible covering, not with the niqab (the face veil) or by tying the khimar (the head covering) if the Bedouin woman had a khimar (the head covering).
The questioner : So, what is our response or how do we explain the issue of the saying of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He):[An-Nur 24:31]?
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The questioner : Do we not find here an indication that if the woman is commanded not to strike with her feet so as not to cause fitnah (trial, discord or temptation)?
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The questioner : Is it not even more so that Islam commands her to cover her face?
The Shaykh : No, and may Allah reward you. Is the beauty of the face artificial or innate?
The questioner : Innate.
The Shaykh : Okay, and are the anklets innate or artificial?
The questioner : Artificial.
The Shaykh : Yes, there is a great difference between them, may Allah reward you. This is actually, as Ibn Hazm says, the second part of his statement. I do not believe in the first part. He says: "All analogical reasoning (qiyas) is invalid". We do not believe in this. But the point in what follows is: when he argues with those who oppose him, he says to them: "This is analogical reasoning (qiyas), and all analogical reasoning (qiyas) is invalid, and if there were any truth in it, this would be the very essence of falsehood". We believe in analogical reasoning (qiyas), but this analogical reasoning (qiyas) is invalid, because you are comparing what the created being does to itself to tempt people with what the Creator made in the woman, such as natural beauty, and you are comparing that artificial temptation with the temptation that Allah created. I am now compelled, when they mention this analogical reasoning (qiyas), to say: Is it not possible for a man to be more beautiful than a woman?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, is this beautiful face obligatory!
The Shaykh : You are saying that the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) has been confirmed.
The questioner : I am tempted by her, for example, meaning she is very beautiful?
The Shaykh : If you are tempted by her, it is obligatory for one of you to turn away. Is it obligatory or not?
It is permissible for the one who is tempted to flee from the one who tempted him.
The questioner : And she does not cover up.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory for her to flee; it is not a matter of just covering her face, she must flee. But you!
The questioner : Because my professor, a Syrian doctor, taught me that he does not see the permissibility of uncovering the face, but he says: if there is fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), she must cover her face, not as if it were an 'awrah (the part of the body that must be covered), not on the basis that it is an 'awrah (the part of the body that must be covered), but because of the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) "Repelling harm is more important than bringing about benefit".
The Shaykh : There is a difference, Professor, between when it is feared that fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) will occur, and when the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) has actually occurred.
The questioner : Fine.
The Shaykh : If the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) has occurred, it is not just covering up; one must turn one's back. But if it is feared that fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) might occur and it is also feared that it might not, why do we restrict people in something that Allah and His Messenger have not forbidden? This is the point to which a scholar resorts when he does not find compelling evidence obligating the Muslim woman to cover her face. Like the Imam, he comes and says: if the time becomes corrupt and fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) is feared. So in the hadith of al-Khath'amiah, what is his position? Did the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) not exist?
Why did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) not say to these people!
The questioner : I see a takhrij (tracing a hadith to its sources) by some scholars saying: that this al-Khath'amiah was perhaps in a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage), or another possibility: it was before the revelation of the hijab (the covering prescribed for women). How do we respond to this?
The Shaykh : This was in the last year of his life (peace be upon him). But what are the first ones saying? What did you say?
The questioner : That she was in a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage).
The Shaykh : In a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage), yes. So it is strange that this is said. Did you not say just now the hadith of Aisha that she used to let her veil hang down? She was not in a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage)?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Why did the Messenger not order her to let her veil hang down over her face? This is the hadith mentioned by Muslim. And regarding the application of hadiths as they came, and refuting the objections that are not valid: she was in a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage), yes, she was in a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage). He ordered her to let it hang down. If there is fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) between you and her, let it hang down. But he said to al-Fadl, and he did not say to her "cover up," meaning: with the permissible covering, not with the niqab (the face veil) or by tying the khimar (the head covering) if the Bedouin woman had a khimar (the head covering).
The questioner : So, what is our response or how do we explain the issue of the saying of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He):
And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment
ولا يضربن بأرجلهن ليعلم ما يخفين من زينتهنThe Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The questioner : Do we not find here an indication that if the woman is commanded not to strike with her feet so as not to cause fitnah (trial, discord or temptation)?
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The questioner : Is it not even more so that Islam commands her to cover her face?
The Shaykh : No, and may Allah reward you. Is the beauty of the face artificial or innate?
The questioner : Innate.
The Shaykh : Okay, and are the anklets innate or artificial?
The questioner : Artificial.
The Shaykh : Yes, there is a great difference between them, may Allah reward you. This is actually, as Ibn Hazm says, the second part of his statement. I do not believe in the first part. He says: "All analogical reasoning (qiyas) is invalid". We do not believe in this. But the point in what follows is: when he argues with those who oppose him, he says to them: "This is analogical reasoning (qiyas), and all analogical reasoning (qiyas) is invalid, and if there were any truth in it, this would be the very essence of falsehood". We believe in analogical reasoning (qiyas), but this analogical reasoning (qiyas) is invalid, because you are comparing what the created being does to itself to tempt people with what the Creator made in the woman, such as natural beauty, and you are comparing that artificial temptation with the temptation that Allah created. I am now compelled, when they mention this analogical reasoning (qiyas), to say: Is it not possible for a man to be more beautiful than a woman?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, is this beautiful face obligatory!