Clarification of some of the statements of the scholars regarding the issue of covering the face of the woman.

The Shaykh : But look at the strange contradiction. He said: "Let them cover their faces," and the description of that is that the woman places the khimar on her head, then throws one end over her right shoulder, then over her left shoulder. Apply this, and you will see that the face is not covered. How can he say "let them cover their faces" and then give a description that contradicts this interpretation? This is the first point.
Then he said: "And it is the taqannu'." And taqannu' also does not provide covering of the face, because taqannu', as is evident, is from the word qina', and the qina' is a head covering.

The questioner : In the language.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Very good.

The Shaykh : And a man who is muqannan means one who has placed the iron qina' over the iron part, which does not cover his eyes or his face, but rather surrounds the disc to the greatest extent so that he can ward off a sword strike or the like. So he says: "It is taqannu'." And if we go back to the books of language, we find that taqannu' is also covering of the head.
Thirdly and finally, he says at the end: "The khimar for the woman is like the 'imamah for the man."

The questioner : Very strange.

The Shaykh : It came.The Shaykh : Al-Shanqiti, unfortunately, transmitted the words of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar without noticing the contradiction first, and without mentioning the last explicit sentence.

Another questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh, they deleted it...

The Shaykh : They deleted it.

The questioner : By Allah, Subhan Allah al-Azim, Allahu Akbar.

The Shaykh : They deleted it. Today, before the Fajr prayer, I was writing the following phrase: that he transmitted.The Shaykh : Al-Shanqiti (may Allah have mercy on him), and al-Tuwajiri followed him in that.The Shaykh : Al-Tuwajiri transmitted the words of.The Shaykh : Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in a truncated form, without mentioning the last sentence, and that is because it is an argument against both of them. And I do not know who was worse in transmission: al-Tuwajiri, who transmitted the text in a truncated form without reference, or al-Shanqiti, who said at the end of what he transmitted from Ibn Taymiyyah.

Another questioner : From Ibn Hajar.

The Shaykh: Regarding Ibn Hajar, what did he say? He said: "It ended..." What did he say, "It ended"? The wording slipped my mind. The point of Ibn Hajar's statement is that I almost said this is like what he says: a man who is invalidating [the prayer] wants to show people that the prayer is not prescribed, because Allah the Exalted said: but the text continues like this: "He did so."The Shaykh : Al-Shanqiti did this, and he said: "The end of the intended meaning of the words of Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani." Why did you not mention the words in their entirety? For a purpose in the soul of Jacob. Until now, no difficulty has stood before me between all these texts except the words of Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani.

Another questioner : Mentioned above.

The Shaykh : Yes, for example: "Let them cover their faces." This is explicit, and they exploited this. I answered as follows, and this is one of the subtleties of knowledge in my opinion. Yes, I said: "His saying 'their faces' is perhaps a slip of the pen or the mind, not just a slip of the pen."

The questioner : Yes, yes, of course, it slips from the mind.

The Shaykh : A slip of the pen or the mind, yes, why? Because it completely contradicts his words, where he said: "The description of the khimar is such and such." So if you actually applied that, actually, although the image is completely clear to me, I called my wife.

Another questioner : A practical application.

The Shaykh : Yes, as if I was imagining the subject, but I was afraid there might be some confusion.

The questioner : May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : Come here, O Umm al-Fadl, bring the khimar. She said to her: "You mean your khimar," because she said: "My khimar." I said to her: "No, this is the one that wraps around." She stood in front of me and brought the khimar. "Put it on your head." She put it on. "Wrap it so I can see if I throw it to the right and then to the left." The face came out uncovered. How can Ibn Hajar say: "Let them cover their faces."
I told her the matter as a scientific benefit, and although she of course does not memorize it, but in any case, it is a reminder. The important thing is, what were we talking about?

The questioner : About the khimar, Ibn Hajar's words that it means a slip of the mind or...

The Shaykh : Yes, that is it. So I said it was a slip of the mind or pen, and I explained the three points that invalidate the interpretation of "their faces."

The questioner : Very good.

The Shaykh : I said at the end that this interpretation might be intended in the sense of adjacency.

The questioner: Oh, wonderful.

The Shaykh : Yes, meaning "their faces" did not mean "their faces," because a thing is mentioned and what is intended is what is adjacent to it. And I said that this is well known in the Arabic language, and Subhan Allah, I cited something.

The questioner : On this rule of adjacency.

The Shaykh : Yes, from the words of Ibn Hajar himself.

The questioner : What does adjacency mean, O our Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Now, what is adjacent to the face? The ears, the throat, and so on. So he did not intend the face itself, but rather what is adjacent to it. So his words return to the words of all the scholars. There is a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari from the hadith of al-Bara' ibn 'Azib: "A man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) while he was wearing an iron taqannu'."

The questioner : This applies to the first one.

The Shaykh : It was, wearing an iron taqannu'. Ibn Hajar says his saying: "Wearing an iron taqannu'" means covering his face with iron.
We said to the addressees or readers, of course, this statement cannot be interpreted with the same apparent meaning with which Ibn Hajar interpreted the word "their faces," because how can this man fight and how can he strive in jihad and how can he see the road with what on him? The iron, which is the helmet and the face guard. So he means what is adjacent to it, so this explains that.
The one who follows his desires.The Shaykh : Al-Tuwajiri is also a researcher, and a drowning man clings to a straw. He says in his book: "And Ibn Hajar said in the course of explaining the meaning of the forbidden khamr. Ibn Hajar said: 'Khamr is called khamr because it covers the intellect, just as the khimar covers the face of the woman.'" And he took it, of course, as an argument for him. So with this introduction whose summary I gave you, I said the answer is that this is from the category of adjacency. But here is an answer that supports what came before: that this was transmitted by al-Hafiz from some of those who interpreted: Why is khamr called khamr? He mentioned from what was said of these statements this statement, and this does not mean that he adopts it, because he narrated what relates to the word khamr, which is covering and concealing, so this is not like that. That one said: "Let them cover their faces." Here he narrated it as a passing mention.

Another questioner : Without verification.

The Shaykh : Without verification, and the intention is not in...

Another questioner : In the khimar.

The Shaykh : Yes, but rather just what? Covering, covering. But finally, and if you are amazed, then be amazed at al-'Ayni. He transmitted the same phrase, and it is known that al-'Ayni is a plagiarist, meaning he took this sentence and its context too. Look at the point. Al-'Ayni, regarding: Do you know that the verse comes in the hadith of 'A'ishah, and in the hadith it says what? Ibn Hajar interpreted the word "fa-ikhtamarna" with it. Al-'Ayni came to the verse: and interpreted it with a good interpretation, like all those from whom we transmitted the interpretation of the verse, that it is covering of the head. But look, when he came to interpret the sentence from the hadith: He said: "And the khimar is covering of the face." The same last words of Ibn Hajar, he did not transmit the whole text, but this last one, as is his habit, did not attribute it.
And so we are done with tracing the statements and discussing what is worthy of discussion among them, and clarifying that this al-Tuwajiri is a man of desire, because from his desire, when we said: "And this is the school of the majority of scholars that the face is not 'awrah," he said: "I mean in prayer, prayer only." And the reality of the texts of the jurists is that they do not mean prayer only.

The questioner : General speech.

The Shaykh : And then how can it be said that the face is 'awrah outside of prayer and not 'awrah inside of prayer, and the opposite is what is reasonable? I mean, you know that he said: If there is an 'awrah specific to prayer, not an 'awrah outside of prayer, the prohibition goes away in prayer. The conclusion is, Subhan Allah.

The questioner : O our Shaykh, something came to my mind regarding the word of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him). Can it not be said: "Let them cover their faces" means without intention, so his first statement does not contradict the second. For example, she is like this, so "let them cover their faces" like this, then she turns it back, so she does not intend to cover the face, but the original is adjacency. And in that case, there is no contradiction or the like, because covering the face came unintentionally and not fundamentally. I mean, "let them cover their faces" with the khimar whose description is...

The Shaykh : "Let them cover their faces" with the khimar whose description is what?

The questioner : Its description is that it is thrown over the shoulders like this, because you know the khimar must have ends from here and here. So if it comes, can they do it like this?

The Shaykh : Is this possible from a practical standpoint? In my mind, I have reviewed the dictionary since my early youth. I remember a sermon by the unjust al-Hajjaj in Basra when he entered the mosque wearing a veil and a face covering. In his sermon, he said:
I am the son of Jalaa, and the one who sees the tips of the teeth. When I remove my turban, you will know me.
So I say that the fact that the khimar is a head covering and the turban is a head covering does not mean that it is impossible to cover the face with them.

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : This is possible, as evidenced by this. Perhaps you remember that in the same discussion on hijab, I mentioned something similar to this meaning. But here I want to add this verse by al-Hajjaj:
Say to the beautiful woman, say to the beautiful man, I don't know what?

The questioner : About the black khimar.

The Shaykh : Do you understand? So she was covering her face, meaning with the khimar, but this does not mean that this is the definition of the khimar. But it is possible.

The questioner : Its description.

The Shaykh : No, it is possible to cover the face with it.

Another questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : And it is not among its characteristics.

The questioner : Yes, yes, I understood completely.

The Shaykh : I mean, what is the abaya now? The abaya is placed on the shoulders, but one can do this and cover one's face. But if one says, for example, "the abaya" or "the jilbab," does that mean covering the face?

The questioner : No, of course not.

The Shaykh : Here is the battle. We come to say that this is possible from the standpoint of possibility, but the issue is historical: did they actually do it or not?

The questioner : Yes, yes, the thing you always excel in is the issue of the practice of the Salaf and its application.

The Shaykh : Yes, so your words do not solve the problem because you are imposing an image that could occur, but the question arises: did it occur?

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : Did it occur?

The questioner : My Shaykh, I only mentioned this to counter the reduction in Ibn Hajar's words. I mean, I am saying this is an interpretation of Ibn Hajar's words, not an interpretation of the original issue of the khimar.

The Shaykh : No problem, but in that case, it is like saying: "We were under the rain and became under the gutter." Can al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar claim the occurrence of a historical event without having any evidence for it? Because you are saying that he meant that they did it, and he did not mean that this is the khimar.

The questioner : All right, my Shaykh, can we not take an analogy from the action of our lady Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) in Hajj?

The Shaykh : No, that is the letting down of the veil. And I missed this when I mentioned to you an hour ago that if al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar wanted the true meaning of his saying: "They cover their faces," he would have said: "They veiled their faces" or "They let down their veils." I said this, and that would have saved him from the description that is an argument against him.

The questioner : Yes, or the issue that it is like the turban for men, or all this detail.

The Shaykh : It would have saved him to say: "So they veiled their faces with it" or "They let it down over their faces and chests."
And Allah is sufficient for the believers in fighting. So the issue is possible from a practical standpoint, that is fine.

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : But did it occur from a historical standpoint? You have, for example, the incident of al-Ifk with the lady Aisha.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : When she was separated and tied to the tree, and the Companion who was separated from the army came, what was his name?

The questioner : Mish'ath.

The Shaykh : Mish'ath? No, not Mish'ath. This was a good, righteous man who was separated from the army. So he walked behind them when they passed by the lady Aisha, and he heard her saying, "La hawla illa billah" or "Allahu Akbar." So she was tired, and she covered her face with the jilbab. This has been the practice of women's hijab for a long time.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : So this is possible, but the important thing is: did the women who veiled themselves in accordance with the saying of the Exalted, from the first of the emigrant women whom the lady Aisha praised: , cover their faces or their heads and chests? This is one aspect. The thing you are mentioning is possible from the standpoint of possibility and it occurred, but regarding the interpretation of: "So they veiled themselves with it," there is absolutely nothing. Yes. And this is sufficient.

The questioner : to our Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : They covered the vessel.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : Some people use this as evidence for this matter.

The Shaykh : That?
The student : That the woman covers her face.

The Shaykh : And why not her head? We do not disagree that the khimar, my brother, is from khamr (covering) and from covering, but the issue is: is the khimar a covering of the head and face, or is it a covering of the head other than the face? Do you understand?

The questioner: Yes.

Another questioner : ... This could be evidence against them, because the covering is not expected to have included the whole thing; it only included the mouth.

The Shaykh : This is correct, the head, I mean.

The questioner : And this is possible, my Shaykh, to take an analogy from it if a statement from the people of knowledge is narrated in its explanation or something like that.

The Shaykh : No, this is not mentioned. The research I referred to earlier regarding khamr mentioned this hadith specifically. Of course, they mentioned it from the standpoint of what? Because the Hanafis refuse to interpret khamr as covering the mind.

The questioner : Because of the issue of nabidh and what is not nabidh.

The Shaykh : This is how they interpreted it? As covering. They interpreted it in a way that helps them not to include intoxicating nabidh in khamr. So the majority responded to them with matters, among which is this hadith: . Meaning, they covered it. So if khamr is, as Umar said: "What covers the mind," then the important thing is that this hadith, at the very least, does not mean covering the whole thing, but only its top. And in fact, I am thinking of utilizing this text.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with all good, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Welcome.

The questioner : He asks: Is it permissible for the uncle to shake hands with his nephew's wife?

The Shaykh : If she is a mahram, it is permissible; otherwise, it is not. Look, is he a mahram to her?

The questioner : No, he is not a mahram.

The questioner : May Allah bless you, my Shaykh. May Allah reward you with good.