Discussion regarding the uncovering of the face for women.

The questioner : The second question: Some of the brothers from the students of knowledge came... regarding the hadith of Asma' about uncovering the face and hands. As for the text of the hadith, what is the answer to that?

The Shaykh : How so, as for the text? And where is the objection?

The questioner : Because in the narrations that came...?

The Shaykh : No, is this narration established with the same degree of establishment as that one? We mentioned earlier, incidentally, that if the narrations are equal, the researcher tries to reconcile them. But if one narration is established and the other is not established, is it said in this case that the hadith is disturbed?

The questioner : They are all weak.

The Shaykh : If he considers them all weak, then he is relieved from establishing the weakness or the disturbance, and the matter is ended; because disturbance is a cause for establishing weakness. But if the weakness is established by other means, then there is no longer a need, especially no need to verify the issue of disturbance, especially when he wants to argue with one who does not consider the hadith weak. Is the speech clear?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine. But I want to draw attention to the fact that those who wrote on this issue, and without doubt the driving force behind each of those who wrote on it was my book *The Hijab of the Muslim Woman*, did not follow the scientific hadith path. First, the majority of them stopped at the hadith of Abu Dawud and did not turn to the hadith of al-Bayhaqi, whose chain contains Ibn Lahi'ah. The hadith of Abu Dawud is narrated from Aisha, and the hadith of al-Bayhaqi is narrated from Asma' bint Abi Bakr. So the two paths are completely different from the Companion or the female Companion. And you know for certain that the chain of al-Bayhaqi alone, some of the preservers of hadith like al-Haythami and others, graded it as good in itself, due to the known difference in the hadith of Ibn Lahi'ah. Ahmad Shakir, one of the great scholars of hadith in the modern era, authenticates his hadith consistently. We, of course, do not agree with him in this, nor do we agree with one who grades the hadith of Ibn Lahi'ah as good absolutely. But we want to draw the attention of those who do not accept, at least, citing this hadith. If it is not authentic, and it is not, and it is not good, and it is not, but they should keep in mind these facts: there are those who grade the hadith of Ibn Lahi'ah alone as good. So at the very least, it should be considered a corroborating narration for the hadith of Abu Dawud. This is something they did not turn to at all. And this is not good, neither from the scientific aspect nor from the moral aspect. Second: And this matter resembles the previous research on the hadith . Imam al-Bayhaqi explicitly stated the strengthening of this hadith, and they act independently in weakening the hadith and do not find a predecessor for them in that. Then, those who research the weakening of the hadith do not have a firm foot in this science, known from before the spread of these new, controversial hadith or fiqh issues. So why does not one of them turn to respond to al-Bayhaqi, but rather directly attack Al-Albani? That is for the known rule: they weakened him and described him as this man Al-Albani, who is obscure and criticized by many people. As for Imam al-Bayhaqi, no one dares to sing around him and say that he made a mistake in strengthening the hadith. So they pour all their attacks on whom? On Al-Albani. And they did the same in the same ruling regarding the face of the woman. They raised a commotion against Al-Albani because he said the face of the woman is not an 'awrah. Fine, let them raise a commotion against the majority of scholars, among whom are Imam Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i, and who knows who else! The majority, as transmitted by Imam al-Nawawi in *al-Majmu'*, are of the opinion that the face of the woman is not an 'awrah. Why are they putting Al-Albani in the front? And directing all their arrows at him, while the majority is safe from them? The answer is with those who know the facts.
Abu Layla : May Allah reward you, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : The point is, so this hadith, the hadith: has a chain that may be an excuse for some of them for not having addressed mentioning it, because I personally... But their position is now stronger than mine in terms of their connection to books that have not been printed. I do not mean manuscripts, but I mean the microfilms. They are stronger than me now because I am far from the Zahiri Library, and the Zahiri Library has manuscripts from which I have undoubtedly benefited greatly and have benefited others. But now the manuscripts in the Zahiri Library, and similar to it or close to it or weaker, have become in the Saudi archives as microfilms. So imagine this thing that I found when I obtained a copy of *Marasil* of Abu Dawud; they had obtained it before me a long time ago. So I say perhaps they, like me, did not stop at it. But I will draw their attention to this narration, which is that the hadith is in *Marasil* of Abu Dawud with the authentic chain from Qatadah, as a mursal, from Qatadah as a mursal. There is no Khalid, there is no Sa'id ibn Bashir. What is in the Sunan
Al-Halabi:...

The Shaykh : is, absolutely not. Abu Dawud narrated it with the authentic chain in his book *Marasil* from Qatadah, saying: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Asma'. So here we are faced with a fact that the fair-minded cannot but submit to, and that is here a valid mursal hadith with a valid chain.