The Correct Interpretation of the Word (Yudnina) in the Statement of Allah the Exalted: “(Let them draw their veils over their bosoms)”

The Shaykh : So, *idna* does not mean covering. This is what I want to reach. *Idna* linguistically, and *idna* in the Arabic language means to bring something close, meaning to cover it, or rather to approach it or come near to it, according to the expression.

The Shaykh : So, means they bring them close to them, meaning to their faces. Here it is said that this text is general. We do not know, perhaps. We know in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, as we see today, some Iraqi women walk with one throwing an abaya over her head, and everything here on her chest is exposed. This is how they were in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance... So Allah the Exalted commanded the Muslim women to draw their veils over their bosoms, meaning this *idna* is absolute, and its explanation is in the Sunnah. Here is the answer: First, it is not permissible, as we explained earlier, to interpret *idna* as covering; because no one says this, whether the one who permitted one eye or both eyes together. The meaning of the verse is that *idna* is bringing close, bringing the *jilbab* close to the face. The face is this disk with which a person faces things. The practical Sunnah and the verbal Sunnah defined and set limits for this *idna*, so that it is not an *idna* with exaggeration and obscuring, nor an *idna* with negligence such that something appears that is not permissible by the Shari'ah. Rather, it is as said in the hadith of Asma: . And so we felt that some of the shaykhs there resorted to a path they do not acknowledge, and we are with them, which is the path of judging by reason, opinion, and philosophy. Because they began to say that it is not permissible for the face of the woman to be considered an *awrah*; because the most beautiful thing in the woman is her face. Okay, so this is how they establish the rulings of the Shari'ah by opinions, which we criticize others for when they contradict the texts merely by opinion. And so we opposed them with two things:
The first thing: If the most beautiful thing in the woman is her face, then what is the most beautiful thing in the man relative to her? The issue is exactly reciprocal.

The questioner : The face.

The Shaykh : The face of the woman relative to the man is the most beautiful thing in her, and the face of the man relative to the woman is the most beautiful thing in him. So say that it is obligatory for both genders that they do not see each other at all; because the most beautiful thing in the man is the face. And we said another thing: Let us assume the most beautiful thing in the woman is her face. We learned from them the following question, of course in an indirect way: What is the most beautiful thing in the face of the woman? Her eyes. No, her eyes, ah. Have you not heard what the poet says: “Do not fight my heart with your eyes, *** For two weak ones overcome a strong one.” So what is the most beautiful thing in the face of the woman? Her eyes. So cover them.
Al-Halabi : So how do they permit her to expose her eyes?

The Shaykh : In any case, so we return to the covering that no one absolutely says is required. This is one of the evils of philosophy, and one of the evils of taking the rulings of the Shari'ah by opinion. May Allah have mercy on some of the scholars of the Salaf, I think it was Malik, who prohibited this method of opinion. Why? He said: Because every day they bring an opinion, so a person is with one opinion in the morning and another in the evening; because these issues will end absolutely, and this is an experience we are facing. They say the most beautiful thing in the woman is her face. We oppose them: the most beautiful thing in the man is his face. What did we benefit from this logic? We benefited the prohibition of the woman exposing her face. So it is obligatory for you to prohibit the man from exposing his face before the woman. And we benefited from them that the most beautiful thing in the face is her eyes, so cover them as well. And our Lord created them with sight, as He created the men, and so on. Therefore we say: “And all good is in following the Salaf, *** And all evil is in the innovation of the Khalaf.” And the truth is that a person feels comfort with the texts of the Shari'ah when they are left without figurative interpretation. And I am amazed at our brothers the people of hadith that they take offense at the scholars of *kalam* for their figurative interpretation of the verses of the attributes. They take offense at them for that, and we are with them, and they call their interpretation denial of the divine attributes. But they should remember with us that there is another type of denial of the divine attributes, which is the figurative interpretation of the texts of the Shari'ah without evidence from the Shari'ah. So when a hadith comes in Sahih Muslim, “A woman with sunken cheeks stood up,” ah, perhaps this hadith was before the revelation of the verse. Perhaps, perhaps. Why this difficulty? Put this hadith with the evidence we mentioned. The issue takes strength, as Imam al-Bayhaqi said, that this hadith is strong, the hadith of Asma and the hadith of Aisha; because the practice of the female Companions was on this, especially since we do not deny the legitimacy of the woman covering her face, nor by reason, but by transmission; because that occurred in the early period. For this reason, one of the motivations for us to establish a special chapter is that the covering of the woman’s face is better, in response to some of our brothers from the people of the Sunnah in Lebanon, meaning their knowledge of the Sunnah and the reports of the Salaf is limited. They said that the covering of the woman’s face is a religious innovation. We do not say this, but we say this is better and we advise it, but we do not be strict and say it is forbidden, because there is no evidence for the prohibition. Okay, what else do you have?

The questioner : Some of those who wrote on the issue of the niqab mentioned an addition to the hadith of al-Khath'amiah, a word found in Musnad Abu Ya'la?

The Shaykh : This is not correct. Its chain of narration is not correct. I think we spoke to you about this, do you remember?
Al-Halabi : I do not remember. This is what we spoke about, we do not even know your opinion on it.

The Shaykh : Strange. Is this correct? Do we say to this brother?
Al-Halabi : A word. He mentioned it and graded it authentic.

The Shaykh : This addition is not correct, and I spoke about it, I think, in the edition I am currently preparing of *Hijab*, which has not been published yet. This is not correct, and even so, read the text, what does it say?

The questioner : The text is not in front of me.

The Shaykh : It is not in front of you?
Al-Halabi : But in the addition, it says that he presented her for marriage or something like that.

The Shaykh : Okay, suppose the addition is correct, what does it indicate?

The questioner : For marriage?

The Shaykh : No, regarding the subject of the disagreement.

The questioner : Exposing the face?

The Shaykh : Okay, who saw the face of the one who presented herself, they claimed for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), perhaps he would propose to her. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) or someone else?

The questioner : Something else.

The Shaykh : Okay, so how did he see that *haram*? This means it falls into the previous discussion, difficulty in dragging texts. And this, if it were correct, and it is certainly not correct, because I reviewed this in Musnad Abu Ya'la. Now I do not remember exactly what its defect is.

The questioner : What is the hadith?

The Shaykh : This Khath'am woman mentioned in the two Sahihs, where the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), after stoning the pillars, had a beautiful woman standing before him, and al-Fadl ibn Abbas was behind him on his camel (peace and blessings be upon him). She said to him: “O Messenger of Allah, my father is an old man who cannot stay on a mount; may I perform the sacrifice for him?” He said: Al-Fadl was looking at her, and she was looking at him. Al-Fadl was handsome, and she was beautiful, so the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) turned al-Fadl’s face to the other side. So we take this hadith as a crushing argument against the opponents; because it occurred at the end of the life of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Also, this argument is a refutation of those who say: “It is true that a woman’s face is not an awrah, but if she is beautiful, and the time is corrupt, and so on, then she should cover her face.” We say: What is your excuse? There is a greater fitnah than this. Satan entered between the Khath’am woman and al-Fadl to the extent that al-Fadl, riding behind the Messenger, was fixing his gaze on her, and the Messenger did no more than turn his face to the other side. I say: If the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) held the view of these scholars, I would say to one of them: “Suppose this story happened to you exactly, meaning you are in the position of the Messenger, and your companion or friend or cousin is your rider, and a beautiful woman is in front of you asking you, what would you do? Would you say ‘cover your face’ or would you be gentle as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was gentle?” He could not answer, but in reality, his position is embarrassing; because if he says “I would say cover it,” he contradicts the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and if he says “No, I would not order her to,” then why do you order her to cover her face when you say it is obligatory to cover it if fitnah is feared? And fitnah exists. In one narration of this story, the woman’s father or uncle—I am far from the date now—pushed her forward so that the Messenger would see her, perhaps the Messenger would marry her.

The questioner : This clip is not correct.

The Shaykh : Ah, this clip is not correct; because they are presenting this narration so that they can get rid of my objection, like the one who was under the rain and then moved under the gutter. If the Messenger had only seen her, this argument might be possible, but the narrator is the one reporting that she was handsome and beautiful, and so on.

The questioner : They also say she was in ihram, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : This also has an answer; because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said explicitly in the hadith: So niqab is pulling the garment like this, but this is permissible in the Shari'ah, and it is called sadl. Therefore, it came in some hadiths from Aisha or from Asma' that they were uncovering their faces while on their camels, and if a rider passed by them, they would cast their veils over their faces. So sadl is permissible, whereas niqab is prohibited. So if we suppose that this Khath'am woman was in ihram, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would have said to her: “Cast your veil over your face as the women of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did.” But even so, they have no evidence that she was in ihram, and we say there is no evidence that she was in ihram. Suppose she was in ihram, there is nothing preventing the sadl which entails covering, and we do not say it is obligatory for her to wear a niqab while in ihram, but it is prescribed for her to cast her veil over her face while in ihram, and they agree with us on this, but the difference is: we say sadl is recommended, they say it is obligatory. So why did the Messenger not order her to do sadl? They say she was in ihram. The answer is that the woman in ihram is prevented from niqab, not from sadl. We are done with this. The most amazing thing I have heard from some scholars in the present age is that he said: “He was looking at her clothing.” This is the most amazing thing to come out. What is the reason? The reason is that we are not actually discussing matters with a logical, Shari'ah-based discussion, we are discussing them with an emotional discussion. We see the corruption, we see the dominance of young men over young women, and so on. How do we treat the issue by being strict in the matter, and it is forbidden for a woman to uncover her face? But here we collide with the reality of the first era, the brightest era, and these hadiths come to us, and we try to twist them and turn them and interpret them, just as the scholars of kalam do with the verses and hadiths of the attributes. Well, let it be.

The questioner : The evidence stands on both sides, whether she was in ihram or not, the evidence stands.

The Shaykh : It stands, still, yes, yes. It is my turn, I mean, may Allah reward you with good. Allow me a moment. It is clear that you have cheated, you put an extra piece... , what does it mean, you are making a scale, it seems...