((And let them lower their veils over their bosoms)) What is the ruling on covering the face?

The questioner: O Shaykh, , what is the ruling on the face?

The Shaykh: This was discussed recently, and it seems the matter requires repetition. The well-known interpretation in your country is that "lowering" means "covering," and this is a clear error. We conducted an experiment yesterday with some of the attendees. We told one of them: "Stand up. This is the jilbab, for example, the abaya you are wearing. Throw it over your head." He stood up and threw the abaya over his head. "Good; now cover your face." He covered his face with the abaya. I said to him: "Walk." He said: "I cannot." I said: "Then how can you impose on women something that you yourselves, as men, cannot do? How do you understand 'lowering' to mean 'covering'? 'Lowering' means bringing close, and this is very clear from knowing the state of the Arabs in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, or rather their women. When they went out, they would wear it as some Iraqi women do today when you see them; they wear the jilbab like this, with the chest exposed. So it was in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. Then Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said: . If we understand 'lowering' as 'covering,' there is absolutely no room for covering. But our Lord only said 'lowering.' Lowering is like this. This lowering is absolute and unrestricted. Here the clarification comes from the Sunnah. We read in the books of exegesis two narrations, one of which is weak. It is the narration of Ibn Abbas that the one who recited this verse said: and did this with the abaya; meaning he concealed one eye. This is very natural and contradicts covering the face, or more clearly, it contradicts interpreting 'lowering' as 'covering.' Especially when certain words are mentioned here that I consider philosophy that should not be mentioned in legal rulings, because it will be met with another philosophy. They say: "The most beautiful thing in a woman is her face." This is obvious, but why do we introduce this philosophy into a purely devotional legal issue where there is no room for intellect? If there is a text ordering the woman to cover her face, we follow it; otherwise, we do not philosophize. Because this philosophy will be met with its like. And I have actually said: if the most beautiful thing in a woman is her face, then what is the most beautiful thing in the face? The answer would be her eyes. So if the first philosophy means that the woman must cover her face because the face is the most beautiful thing in her, then she must also cover her eyes along with the face, because the eyes are the most beautiful thing in the face. And no one holds this view at all.
Some people who do not know the evidence in this regard resort to escaping this objection by imposing something that was not customary in that time; for example, wearing dark glasses so that her eyes are not visible, while at the same time she can see her way. Or wearing a handkerchief, as is known today, which she drapes over her face, not thick but somewhat transparent, so that she can see the way and her face is not seen. This handkerchief was also not in that time. All that existed was the niqab, and the niqab is still known today. The Messenger (peace be upon him) mentioned it in the authentic hadith when he said: . The concept of the hadith is that the non-mahram woman wears the niqab and gloves. This means that this existed in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This is well known. But interpreting as covering the face, including the eyes, is something that no one who is mindful of the implications of his statement can say. For this reason, I said: two reports were narrated; one from Ibn Abbas, which is weak, that she reveals one eye. In a second report from Ubaydah al-Salmani, who is a Tabi'i, he recited this verse and described the process of hijab, revealing both of his eyes. So where is the covering by which the verse is interpreted? There is no complete covering left, but rather incomplete covering; that is, covering everything except the face, if we stop at these two reports: the first report from Ibn Abbas, and if it were authentic, it would be a proof, because he is the interpreter of the Qur'an, as witnessed by Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him). But the chain to him is weak, with a break and weakness in it.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner: As witnessed by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh: As what?

The questioner: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) witnessed for him.

The Shaykh: With what?

Another questioner: For Ibn Abbas.

The Shaykh : For what?

The questioner: That he is the interpreter of the Qur'an.

The Shaykh: No, "interpreter of the Qur'an" did not come from the Messenger. What came from the Messenger was the supplication for him to be given deep understanding in the religion and taught interpretation. As for witnessing that he is the interpreter of the Qur'an, this is not from the Messenger (peace be upon him), but from Ibn Mas'ud. So this report from Ibn Abbas is not authentic.
The second matter is authentic from this Ubaydah, but if it were elevated to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), it would not be a proof, because it would be a mursal report. How then is it, when it is mawquf upon him? That is, it is cut off according to the terminology of hadith scholars.
The important point is that no interpretation of the noble verse has come from the Salaf regarding the obligation of covering the face. And this is not possible, as we described earlier, because it entails covering the eyes as well. And that is not possible for a woman if she goes out to the market to fulfill a need, buy goods, or the like. Rather, it is established from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, and others of the Salaf that regarding His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): , they said: "It is the face and the hands." So the matter returns to the fact that the interpreter of the Qur'an does not see or understand from the verse of the jilbab that the face is an awrah, but rather he sees that it is excluded from the woman's awrah. And this is the view of the majority of the well-known, famous jurists.
In summary: what I have established in the past and present is that a woman covering her face is the most noble and best for her, especially in the time of fitnah as is the reality now. As for saying that it is forbidden for her, there is no evidence for this in the Shari'ah. At that point, one must be scrupulous about declaring something forbidden. If a woman wishes to cover her face and hands, that is the best for her. And if she wishes to take a dispensation and reveal her face, she has that right, on the condition that she does not adorn her face with artificial makeup.