A discussion on the issue of a woman uncovering her face.

The questioner : ... but he is a fanatic about his opinions, and especially this one, covering the face, in both words and deeds... No, it is Ibn Uthaymeen specifically who is a fanatic about this issue in a strange way.

The questioner : Which issues?

The questioner : The obligation of covering a woman's face, in both words and deeds, because I heard him say so, and I think he has a treatise on this subject; as for in practice, because Abu 'Abdullah 'Ali Khushan was passing by the road from Unaizah, so he wanted to visit Ibn Uthaymeen and greet him, so he entered and asked about Ibn Uthaymeen, and they told him he might be in the mosque, so he said to the women, "Okay, enter the house, and I will go see," and Ibn Uthaymeen was coming from the road, he introduced himself and said to him, "I am so-and-so, one of the students ofThe Shaykh : Nasser and so on, and we wanted to visit you"; so he said to him, "Welcome; but the women, 'Ali Khushan's women are veiled but they uncover their faces," he said to him, "O Shaykh, this is a matter of scholarly disagreement," meaning he said to him, "Absolutely, the women do not enter"; so he said to him, "If so, peace be upon you," and he went on his way.

The questioner : Meaning, in covering the face, it is more modest and better, even if uncovering it is permissible...

The questioner : There is no doubt.

The questioner : The greatest fitnah (trial) is in the face.

The questioner : I am of this opinion.

The Shaykh : The research is not about what is better, the research is about the obligation, and the statement of those who say it is obligatory that the fitnah is in the face, this is a foreign philosophy in Islam, and the completion of this philosophy is when the man says: "The face, the woman's face is the root of fitnah," this naturally means with respect to him, the man; so if someone opposed me, like I did, and also with respect to the woman, the man's face is a fitnah for her, and more than that, because it is not hidden from you that the 'awrah (nakedness) of the man is very limited, the circle narrows, so it is permissible for the man, for example, to uncover his chest and his arms, and his back, so do you think if a woman sees these muscles and the whiteness, and so on, is it not a fitnah?

The questioner : It becomes a fitnah.

The Shaykh : If... this 'awrah, the man's whole body is 'awrah; because there is fitnah in it; this is a foreign philosophy that entered Islam, and therefore it is obligatory upon the Muslims, the Salafis, the people of hadith, the supporters of the Sunnah, to stand by the texts, and to keep philosophy away from them, otherwise this opens for us a door that we have no capacity to close; the woman's face is a fitnah, I say: Yes, with respect to whom? With respect to the man; likewise, the man's face is a fitnah with respect to whom? With respect to the woman; so if they say that the man's face is 'awrah, this is a logic that no one says at all; but if we follow the texts, what do the texts give us? The obligation, we hear and obey; the recommendation, we hear and obey; as for saying: "The most tempting thing in the woman is her face," then this philosophy contradicts the hadith of al-Khath'amiah, and I think you remember the hadith?

The questioner : Yes, in Hajj.

The Shaykh : Okay, this fitnah occurred, we are now researching in imagination, and leaving what occurred, meaning there was a fitnah that was about to occur between the woman and the man, so what did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) say to the woman, "Stop your share of it, lower your veil over your face," but rather he took al-Fadl's head and turned him to the other side; this is a practical application from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in the last of his life, which invalidates the claim first: that the woman's face is 'awrah, and specifically that the woman's face is 'awrah because it is a cause of fitnah, here is the fitnah, it was about to occur, and yet the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) dealt with it...
But the strange thing is that sectarian fanaticism or local customs blind even the people of knowledge from the texts of the Qur'an, and lead them to interpret them to the furthest extent. They lower their gaze from what? If there is nothing uncovered, the man lowers his gaze from what? And the wonder is that Allah the Exalted did not limit His address to the believers, He said: So both texts give us that in both the man and the woman there is something uncovered, and if not, the divine address would have no meaning; if the woman...
I first went, the first argument, and I went to Riyadh, meaning I used to see it as very difficult that a man without character would catch up with her, why? Because her garment dragged on the ground and raised the dust, from a Bedouin walking behind her, then the circumstances began to change and change; so if Allah says: This means that there is something there that the gaze should be lowered from, and in the men likewise: What turned these scholars away from these texts? It is the customs. Then the most amazing thing for me is that I have about ten treatises, all refuting al-Albani, and as if al-Albani brought something that would make the heavens split from it and the earth crack and the mountains crumble; and al-Albani did not bring anything new, but the opinion of the majority, and he supported it with evidence from the Book and the Sunnah and the statements of the Salaf and the Imams, all of them rose up like a wasp's nest against al-Albani.
Abu al-A'la al-Mawdudi brought something that had never preceded him with respect to the 'awrah of the woman, based on a defective hadith that you know, the hadith that we strengthen and they weaken: In a narration in the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir, Abu al-A'la al-Mawdudi relied on it: No one addresses a refutation of this man, why? Because he is not al-Albani, because al-Albani became with this book a danger to the Najdi women, okay, and al-Mawdudi, what is the difference? The difference is I brought evidence to support the opinion of the majority, he brought a weak hadith that no scholar before me ever said, and we see now the Najdi women, likewise this is a problem they do not address, yes, she put on a burqa; but here her neck is exposed, yes, she is veiled but her arm is exposed, all this we see in the Saudi countries, why do they not address this problem and this issue except by refuting al-Albani because he said that the woman's face is not 'awrah, even though he dedicated a special section that covering the woman's face is the best and most honorable for her; Glory be to Allah, many people are sometimes taken by emotions and personal habits.
Abu Layla : One of the young Saudi men I met a few days ago, and he was saying we are very fanatical about the Shaykh, we said, by Allah, our Shaykh did not accustom us to being fanatical, and we do not find this in ourselves, being fanatical about the Shaykh; and after we sat for more than half an hour, of course he says: "Our Shaykh Ibn Baz and so on," he began to be fanatical, so I said: Where is the fanaticism now, with us or with you? So I mentioned that one of our brothers found three chains for the hadith of A'ishah, so he said: Even if he found seventy chains, we will not respond to him, even if he found seventy chains; if this has not become...
Al-Albani: This is fanaticism itself; in the hadith of al-Khath'amiah there is no evidence that she was uncovering her face, but rather he was looking at the blackness of her body, God is Great.
Abu Layla : Who says this, O our Shaykh?

The Shaykh : The Shaykh : Ibn Baz in some of his treatises; but the most amazing thing like this is what I heard on the Saudi radio a month and a half ago and I recorded it, because I want to publish it and respond to it, he said: The hadith of al-Khath'amiah — one of these who broadcast from Riyadh, naturally I did not remember his name — says there is no explicit statement in the hadith that she was uncovering her face, and if we assume that she was uncovering her face, it is permissible that she did not know that the woman's face is 'awrah, God is Great, the story became in front of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), so if she did not know, does the Messenger not teach her?! This means attributing to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) the approval of error, rather the approval of the haram (forbidden) being committed in front of him and not clarifying it to the people; it is on the radio, the whole Islamic world hears it.
Abu Layla : Okay, our Shaykh, the problem of these women who believe in the obligation of covering the face, of course in her house she has ancestors and so on, so if she believes that this is obligatory, is she sinful?

The Shaykh : Of course.
Abu Layla : Sinful?

The Shaykh: It is known.

The questioner : Sinful in her belief that it is obligatory, or in uncovering her face?

The Shaykh: How?

The questioner : If she believes it is obligatory and uncovers her face?

The Shaykh : Yes, she is sinful if she uncovers her face, this is his question.