The Shaykh’s mention of the discussion that took place between him and Shaykh Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Misri regarding the issue of whether a woman’s face is an awrah (part of the body that must be covered) or not, and the presentation of evidence for

The questioner : Regarding the issue of the woman’s hijab (the covering prescribed for women) or the niqab (the face veil)

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : We have heard that you are preparing a new edition of *The Hijab of the Muslim Woman*

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : And of course, you know, and perhaps you have seen the book *The Return of the Hijab* by Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Misri.

The Shaykh : Yes, I have seen the first and second parts.

The questioner : The second part has been printed, and it contains this section on the niqab (the face veil)

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : We have also learned that you met with him during Hajj (the major pilgrimage), I think three or four years ago, and you discussed the matter. We would like to hear from you the substance or a summary of this discussion, and why he did not retract his statement, and so on?

The Shaykh : First, if there were a broad scientific study and the person under study still held to his opinion, we could not control him or ask why he did not retract; because this is a matter of personal conviction. This is if the study were, as they say, comprehensive and exhaustive. In reality, that was not the case; it was merely words, because the gathering was among a group of tens, if not hundreds, of Egyptians who gathered and stayed in one place among the pilgrims. But the matter I remember from what was discussed is the verse by which some scholars, both past and present, argue for the obligation of a woman covering her face. Allah the Exalted said: So we said at that time, and we still say and record what we say, that Allah’s saying does not mean, from the meanings taken from the Arabic language or the legal language, in any way that the intended meaning of His saying is that they cover, because *idna* means bringing close. Especially since the scholars of exegesis are agreed, or as if they are agreed, that this verse was revealed to correct a custom the women were upon in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, which was that they would throw the *jilbab* over their heads and leave it as it was, such that some of their hair, jewelry, and earrings would show, in the manner that many Arab women, such as the Iraqis and others, still do, who still use what is called the *abayah*. They throw it over their heads and then leave it like that, in its natural state, so that some of what is forbidden by the Shari'ah to be displayed shows, such as the neck, the chest, and the hair, and the like. So Allah the Exalted said: *Idna* is bringing close. So if our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, had intended what these scholars understand from *idna*, which is covering, He would have said in clear Arabic: "Let them cover their faces," and the problem would be solved. But He, Glorified and Exalted is He, did not intend the complete covering of the face. And for that reason He said meaning a woman who has thrown the *jilbab* over her head, if she takes the sides of the *abayah* with her hand or both hands and pulls it back toward her head, it is said that she has brought it close. And the more she brings it close, the more she brings it close. So this word is absolute in the Qur'an and admits of restriction, or if it is general, it admits of specification. Here the importance of the Sunnah appears, that it takes charge of explaining what is general and specifying what is absolute in the text, or restricting what is absolute, matters mentioned in the Qur'an. And for that reason Allah the Exalted said in the explicit text of the Noble Qur'an And it is known to all scholars that the explanation of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is of three types: either by his saying (peace be upon him), or by his action, or by his approval. The saying and the action are known, but approval is when the Messenger (peace be upon him) sees something and approves it, so this approved matter from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is as if he had said it or done it. So his approval (peace be upon him) of that matter is considered an explanation of the Noble Qur'an. Since this verse regarding *idna* is absolute, there came in the Sunnah what explains that this *idna* is not over the whole face. For that reason, I can say that *idna* on the face in the sense of covering is impossible for a scholar of the Salaf or the Khalaf to say; it is impossible, and reality bears witness to that. And why? Because those who argue with this verse and interpret it without looking at the consequence of their interpretation of *idna* as covering the face fall into this, which is what I was in the process of explaining in this new introduction. They forget that this opinion is the first thing they contradict if they hold to it. And I have noticed that some of them held to it and some did not. I mean, if they interpret Allah’s saying , this is a turban and that is assumed to be a veil. Now, I assume I have a turban on my head. If I wanted to cover my face with it, that is what a person says; because this means blinding the woman on her way, because she will not be able to see the road, and she has covered her face with what? With the *jilbab*. Temporarily remove the *niqab* from your minds, and temporarily remove the transparent handkerchief used in our Syrian lands and elsewhere, where the woman sees the road and does not see. This is something that was not there before. First, it was not there, and second, it is not mentioned in the verse. What is mentioned in the verse is the *jilbab*, and they interpret "let them bring down from their *jilbab* over their faces" as "let them cover their faces with their *jilbab*." So covering the face: if you cover your face with the *jilbab*, look at what happens to the women? This one puts that long *jilbab* down, the important thing is that it blocks what? The road for her; she does not see the road. Therefore, they argue with two reports, one of which is weak, and this is what is taken against all the shaykhs. And I think our man may have fallen into what others fell into, because the saying applies to him: "You are not the first fool deceived by the moon." Because I did not find a man among those who interpret this verse as "let them cover their faces" who says that this report is not authentic. It is from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that he recited this verse and said, "They cover their faces," and he took something like a *jilbab*, meaning a turban, and wrapped it around his face like this, and left one eye. This is a report from Ibn 'Abbas, and it is not authentic. It has two defects: the disconnection between 'Ali ibn Abi Talhah and Ibn 'Abbas is a broken chain, and the other defect is 'Abdullah ibn Salih al-Misri, for whom there is criticism, due to his poor memory in some narrations, and because there were those who inserted into his hadiths what was not part of his hadiths. We are not now in the position of detailing this, but he is criticized in his hadiths. And you see that this hadith, which is mentioned and narrated from Ibn 'Abbas, even if it is not traced to the Prophet, but is an explanation by a Companion, and the Companion has his weight when he explains a verse, but the chain to him is weak and not authentic. The other report they mention is authentic from one of the Tabi'un, who is 'Ubayd ibn al-Salmani. He reads this verse and interprets it practically, meaning he covers one eye and reveals one eye. This is authentic from this Tabi'i, and his chains are free of any blemish whatsoever. But I said in my new response: if this interpretation had been traced to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), it would have been a *mursal* hadith. And a *mursal* hadith, if there is nothing to support it and take from its strength, is weak and not used as evidence. And this is the reality: there is nothing that witnesses to or strengthens this hadith of al-Salmani. On the contrary, there is what explains from many of the Companions, including Ibn 'Abbas himself, that the face and hands of a woman are not part of the woman's *awrah*. Therefore, there is nothing that interprets *idna* as covering the face absolutely. And for that reason, I said it by way of a joke: those who say that *idna* is covering the face are free, if they wish, to say that one of the eyes is not part of the face, and therefore it is permissible to reveal it. But it is part of the face, as is the reality. And in that case, do not say the verse indicates the obligation of covering the face, because you have contradicted this claim by permitting the woman to reveal, and praise be to Allah, thank your Lord that they opened the way for her to reveal one eye. May Allah increase their good, otherwise they would have covered it completely. But some of them added the two eyes, and praise be to Allah, this is better than the first. Well, where did you get the first eye that you permitted and excepted from covering the face? This covering that you took from *idna*? They said, "By Allah, we noticed that the woman must be able to see the road." Well, where did you permit the second eye? One eye is enough, because they permitted the *niqab*, and you know their country. This is Abu Mus'ab, do you know him? Abu Mus'ab

The questioner : Abu Mus'ab!

The Shaykh : I don't know what his name is? The one who authored *Al-Lubab fi Fard al-Niqab* (The Essence of the Obligation of the Niqab).

The questioner : Yes, al-Hindawi.

The Shaykh : Al-Hindawi, yes.
Al-Halabi : We have been informed that he retracted and regretted his book.

The Shaykh : May Allah guide him.
Al-Halabi : This is what I actually recorded.

The Shaykh : Do you know him and what do you know about him?

The questioner : Yes, I know that he studies Shafi'i jurisprudence as a school, and he has the issue of *taqlid* (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) and school adherence.

The Shaykh : Meaning, he may be a Salafi in creed.

The questioner : Yes, a Salafi in creed.

The Shaykh : And not a Salafi in the branches of jurisprudence.

The questioner: Correct.

The Shaykh : This is the apparent evidence. As for the niqab, those who cite the athar from Ibn Abbas and al-Silmani argue for the obligation of the niqab. So I said: If it is absolutely necessary to exclude one or two eyes that the woman reveals out of need or benefit, then that means an implicit admission—and it is not a scientific admission, but an explicit one—that the verse does not mean covering the face, or at least does not mean covering the entire face. Rather, it refers to two of the three aspects I mentioned earlier: the statement, the action, and the tacit approval. As for the first aspect, it is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him). As for the other aspect, it is the third: the tacit approval of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) of some women who used to reveal their faces to him, either by his seeing them or by his knowledge of it, and he did not disapprove of that. Why? Because he is the one who said, in our view, and not in theirs: And I know from my long experience that when a refuter is refuting, he answers one thing and leaves others alone, not addressing them by mention, brushing them aside, and not saying anything at all about them, neither criticism nor admission. These people who have written, and I do not know if our brother Muhammad Ismail rambled around this which I am now refuting, all of them, when they came to this hadith, said: This is a weak hadith that cannot be used as evidence. Why? Abu Dawud said, "Khalid ibn Duraik from Aisha is mursal," meaning he did not hear it. We caught them off guard: It is established that this Khalid did not hear from Aisha. They said, and Sa'id ibn Bashir, who is in its chain, is weak. And the shadhdh (anomalous) from them is only about us, and from them too, but he is very weak. The majority of them said: Weak. He shadhdh from them and exaggerated, saying: Very weak. And based on that, he said: It is not suitable to cite this hadith as evidence. Then he quoted from al-Mizan by al-Dhahabi the opinions of the critics of this narrator. And unfortunately, very unfortunately, he did the deed of those with desires, for he was not faithful in his transmission. First, he quoted from al-Dhahabi in al-Mizan, and al-Dhahabi in al-Mizan quoted what he quoted from him, but he also quoted the opinions of those who vouched for this man, Sa'id ibn Bashir. Our companion al-Sindi, Abd al-Qadir ibn Habib Allah al-Sindi, omitted this. He quoted the critical opinions and omitted the vouching opinions. While the vouching opinions, even though we do not want to rely on them to say the man is trustworthy, they illuminate for the unbiased researcher the path to knowing the reality of this narrator, Sa'id ibn Bashir. Is he at the extreme of weakness such that, as al-Sindi said, he cannot be cited as evidence? Or is he not so, but rather in the middle between being one whose hadith is abandoned and one whose hadith is hasan? Rather, his hadith is hasan by the corroborating narrations and other paths. So he omitted the vouching, but it is possible for him to say the man is very weak, knowing that the narrations he quoted do not all give extreme weakness; some may give that. But the most amazing of this is that after he quoted what he quoted in a truncated manner, as we mentioned, he said: Refer to the following sources, and he mentioned about eight books, such as al-Kamil by Ibn Adi, al-Duafa by al-Uqayli, Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Tarikh al-Kabir by al-Bukhari, al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil, and so on. He said: Refer to them to know the reality of this man, and others. He did not suffice with naming books, but he added "and others." Poor man, I mean, I am a man who pities him, because if he knows what he is saying, then by Allah he is a liar, a fabricator, a deceiver. And if he does not know, and I think that is the case, he is a dervish. But why does he put himself in the den of the scorpion? He puts himself in a matter he does not know how to handle properly. When we returned to the sources he referred us to, we found the amazing thing. We found in these sources that the hadith of this man is hasan, and we found the Imam al-Bukhari, the Imam of the Muhaddithin, saying: "They spoke about him due to his poor memory, but he is acceptable." What does this statement mean? It means his weakness is slight and acceptable, and he is not criticized for it. We find the one known for his strictness, Abu Hatim al-Razi, in al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil, quoting from his son many phrases, the last of which said: Quoted from the book of al-Duafa, Sa'id ibn Bashir. Some of them, like al-Nasa'i, mentioned him in the book of al-Duafa. I do not know if it is in al-Bukhari's book. Weak. I saw it there in al-Duafa by al-Bukhari?
Al-Halabi : In al-Duafa of two of my shaykhs.

The Shaykh : In the large and the small, yes, but...
Al-Halabi : The small one exists.

The Shaykh : I mean, it does not exist?
Al-Halabi : No, it exists. As for the large one, it does not exist.

The Shaykh : Does it not exist? Is his name in the small one?
Al-Halabi : No, I don't think so.

The Shaykh : That is my intention. The point is that Abu Hatim is asked by his son, "What is your opinion of so-and-so?" He says he is such-and-such. He quotes from the book of al-Duafa, meaning he elevates his hadith and does not lower it to the level of "very weak." So the sources he referred the readers to, and you know, not all readers have the ability to come and search, investigate, and verify, and so on. And as you know, the closest people to us complain that we are too meticulous, brother, it takes the breath out of them—(laughs)The Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him)—and this meticulousness is what we have imprinted on knowledge. This is not a favor from us, but knowledge requires this matter. We came to others. Did he say, "Refer to such-and-such sources," and others? And we returned to others, and we found al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in al-Tahdhib quoting from al-Bazzar that he is sound in hadith, meaning his hadith is hasan. And we return to al-Dhahabi, and this is a very important benefit. His specific book on the narrators he spoke about, and he mentioned him in this book, yes. So it means the man is not a researcher, and not a scholar of the principles, the principles of hadith science, and so on. He came and entangled himself in this entanglement, and he shadhdh from his group, who limited themselves to declaring it weak, and he added, as they say, a bundle of straw on his camel's load, and said: Very weak. Why? He treated it as his line of retreat: If one brings a weak corroborating narration, this is not enough with that. What is that? Because it is very weak. Then what did the majority of them, all of them, do? Except this Jordanian doctor who brought the amazing thing. In any case, they came and discussed this hadith from two angles: the angle of disconnection. They stopped at Abu Dawud's transmission, and it was enough for them that it is disconnected, and Sa'id ibn Bashir's weakness, so-and-so declared him weak, so-and-so declared him weak, and so on. I said: People, who are you refuting? If al-Albani had vouched for this man, you would refute him and say so-and-so declared him weak, and so-and-so, and so-and-so. But you are confirming what preceded you. I said in al-Hijab that this man is weak, and you, as it came in the Qur'an, "This is our merchandise returned to us." You did not bring anything new. You are declaring the man weak, and we have already declared him weak. Here is the evidence in my previous words: When I see the debater turning away from something, it means he is refuting. I said in al-Hijab that this is weak, and I accepted the disconnection according to Abu Dawud, but the hadith has paths that strengthen it. They did not ramble around these at all, as if I am citing it for its own sake, while I declared it weak and said its chain is disconnected as Abu Dawud said, and Sa'id ibn Bashir is weak, but it came from paths and I strengthened it with these paths. They did not answer my strengthening of these paths. This is proof that they are incapable of debating in the best manner. And so I do not know, by Allah, do these people know what they are doing or not? They mislead the whole world. And I have touched this with my hand: This hadith is weak. Yes. This is al-Albani's argument. And so I see some of our close brothers, and I told you on the way that recently they were with us in the evening gathering, and he informed me that this hadith is weak. Well, you always frequentThe Shaykh : Why are you discussing this? I take the words of these people who weaken the hadith. I returned, and religion is advice. I say, "O Shaykh, these people are weakening the hadith, and you are constantly arguing with it, and we hear you arguing with it, and so on." They have deceived the entire world with this method, which is at best deficient, if we do not say, out of good will, that it is a deceptive method. They have deceived all readers into thinking that Al-Albani argues with a weak hadith. Even some of our close brothers ask, "What is the reason?" The reason is that they take matters based on emotions, not based on the knowledge that balances unbridled emotions. So, in the book, and praise be to Allah, I succeeded in saying that it is better and more honorable for a woman to cover her face, but if we see a woman who is fully veiled except for her face, we do not disapprove of her, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said so, and because the female Companions did so and so. I brought many, many proofs. Among these proofs is the hadith of al-Khath'amiah, and here it becomes clear that these people's position regarding the Sunnah is exactly the position of the people of desires, where they say, "It is possible that this is the case," and "It is possible that that is the case." And these possibilities, glory be to Allah, I say the word of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) when a questioner came to him and asked him, and he answered, "What do you think about such and such?" He said, "Put your opinion at that star." This possibility is not valid. Some of them do not say? And this is proof of their invalidity. In a place where they do not say? They say that the hadith of al-Khath'amiah was in a state of ihram, and a woman in ihram is not permitted to cover her face. A little while later, they walk and walk, and they say that a woman in ihram should let her veil hang over her face. Well, what is letting it hang? Is it not covering the face? Yes, we agree with them that letting it hang for a woman in ihram is not the same as wearing the niqab, but when we argue with you using the hadith of al-Khath'amiah, that she asked the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)—perhaps some of our brothers do not recall this hadith—that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was on the Farewell Pilgrimage, on the Day of Sacrifice, and al-Fadl ibn al-'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) was riding behind him. A woman from the Khath'am tribe stopped to ask him, and she was beautiful, so al-Fadl was looking at her, and he was handsome, and she was looking at him. So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) turned al-Fadl's face to the other side, and said to him, in some other narrations outside the authentic collections: , or as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said. What do they say?

The questioner : Peace be upon you

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace. It was said that she was in a state of ihram. Well, and even if she was in ihram, although we hold the stronger view that she had finished after the stoning, yes, but let us assume, and this is not certain for us either, it is possible. Suppose she was in ihram, but why do you, as an excuse for this hadith, say that she was in ihram, and this means that she is not permitted to cover her face? So you excuse it with the cause of ihram, regarding the covering, and then in another occasion, you say it is permissible for a woman in ihram to let her veil hang over her face, but not to wear the niqab, and we say this. So the next answer comes, and I did not like for a person, when asked a question, to give a radical answer that forcesThe questioner : him to repeat the question in other words. So here, look at what happens? What do you think, brothers, the hadith of al-Khath'amiah is explicit that it is permissible for a woman to uncover her face, by the proof that al-Fadl was looking at her, and she was looking at him as he was looking at her. They say, "Here. She was in ihram." This answer is not sufficient, because the next question will come: Is it not permissible for a woman to let her veil hang over her face? They will be forced to say yes, especially if they say, "If she fears fitnah." Well, the fitnah occurred, by the proof of the Messenger turning al-Fadl's face to the other side. Other people come—and upon you be peace, and Allah's mercy and blessings—and they say, "The hadith does not state that the woman was uncovering her face." Strange stubbornness. Well, then what was al-Fadl looking at? He said, "Perhaps he was looking at her body, at something of her extremities." This is what al-Tuwiji says.
Al-Halabi : One person said, "Perhaps the wind blew away the veil on her face."

The Shaykh : (Laughter) This is correct, this is correct, it is written. He said, "Something of her extremities." Well, what part of a woman's extremities is exposed? And they say it is obligatory for a woman to cover her face and her hands, but because of their fanaticism, and their handling of the matter with desire, not with knowledge, you find them focusing on the face and ignoring the hands. These are strange things, and very strange. I mentioned a hadith in "The Veil of the Muslim Woman," the story of that woman who came to pledge allegiance to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and she extended her hand, and he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . What was the answer of al-Tuwiji and his followers? He said, "This does not indicate that the woman was uncovering her face." By Allah, this is correct, and we mentioned it, that it is proof that it is permissible for a woman to uncover her hands. What matters to him? Why this side? Because he has focused on the face. So this is an admission that uncovering the hand of a woman was approved by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Do they say that? No, they pass over the argument, and say, "This is not proof that the woman was uncovering her face," correct, but from another angle, there is proof that the woman was uncovering her palm, because the Messenger knew whether this was a man's hand or a woman's. He knew it was a woman. The point is, and so they strain to refute the evidence. The most important evidence for us is actually the hadith of al-Khath'amiah; because the Messenger saw both the male and the female, each looking at the other, and invalidates this claim. And so they resorted to the idea that, by an unintentional movement of hers, the wind uncovered her face. The prescribed jilbab, which is held in the right hand, the wind does not uncover. The wind does not uncover? It uncovers this transparent scarf, this light one, which was not known in that time. So imagine how the group answers with imaginary answers, because if we assume the woman is wearing a jilbab, the jilbab needs to be held in her hand so that what? She leaves only one eye visible, according to their school, or the slightly broader school, both eyes. How do you manage the situation, and where does the wind come from, unless it is a stormy wind that blows the jilbab away with the woman wearing it, and that is not the issue. So what wind will come and uncover her face while she is gripping the jilbab with her right hand? I mean, very strange answers, by Allah. If it were not for desire, they would not have fallen into such interpretations, which we all agree to reject, similar to those of the people of desires in the past. Yes, so I mention that I researched this topic there in Mina, only this verse
and the other verse:
Al-Halabi : I researched this as well.

The questioner : Brother Ali

The Shaykh : This is what I found, a phrase by Ibn Taymiyyah, which is very wonderful. He says the previous verse: This is the veil for going out.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : I tell you, the verse we mentioned, The jilbab for going out is the curtain of the houses. This is the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah. And it never occurs to one who reads this verse to understand it as they say today, that the woman in the house is taking her freedom, the least freedom, not wearing a khimar. So, for example, the baker or the butcher comes and knocks on the door, what do the women who display their adornment do today? As if he is her brother or her sibling, and so on. This is how they were in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. So Allah, Mighty and Majestic, raised them from behind a veil. Do not expose your state, speak from behind a veil, behind the door, behind the curtain, behind anything, so that nothing of you that is forbidden is seen. So the verse has no relation to the jilbab, it has a relation to the hijab, and the hijab may be a jilbab, and this is if you go out, and it may be a door, and this is if she is in the house. (Laughter, may Allah have mercy on him).
Abu Layla : Our Shaykh, I remembered this when we were in Saudi Arabia, at the sea, at the residence of the Chief of the National Guard. I mentioned the same thing you said.
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, something appeared to some students of knowledge

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : in the same case, so we want to inquire about its authenticity and its establishment.

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : It says that among the attributes of the covering for the woman's body and her 'awrah, is that it must have two conditions. The first condition is that it does not describe what is underneath it, and the second is that it does not become transparent about what is underneath it. He says, and this is not achieved in the glove, meaning it does not become transparent about what is underneath it, but it describes it. So if it were 'awrah, it would not be a covering for it. So this is proof that the hand is not 'awrah.

The Shaykh : This is beautiful, and by Allah, this is beautiful for us, but as for them, let me tell you something. Recently, I think, and perhaps you were sitting in the gathering, unfortunately, to this day I have not seen any of the madhhab followers who say to distinguish between the condition that it not be tight-fitting and the condition that it not be transparent. For them, the first condition is secondary, and the second condition is the essential one, the foundation. That is, clothing that reveals the color of the skin is not permissible for them, whereas clothing that is tight-fitting is disliked, and it is a disliked act of avoidance (makruh tanzihi). And so I told you this observation that I am making: this is very acceptable to us, but not to them.
Because this is tight-fitting and there is no violation of the Shari'ah, it is disliked. They say, if they want to be strict, they might say that it is not necessary for the glove to be like the kind that exists today, a bag. A bag, and I saw it once, I saw it, or otherwise, how is the sock? The sock does not have fingers, just as a woolen glove, a person puts his hand in it and the fingers do not become tight-fitting. They might impose this strictness. Do not speak with logic here; logic is lost. - He laughsThe Shaykh : May Allah have mercy on him and the students - Do not speak with logic, yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : So I will keep your question. No problem, keep your question. So I say that the condition for the garment is that it not be tight-fitting, not just that it not be transparent. This condition of non-transparency is agreed upon. As for the condition of not being tight-fitting, although I mentioned in the hijab that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered her to put on a loose garment, but it should not reveal the size of her head or the size of her bones. They took this to mean what? Dislike. So this observation is not valid for them. But I brought up very serious things against them in any gathering we were in. When I told the story of the athlete al-Buhara in al-Murja? Perhaps you saw these things. I saw them, not now, but when I was young. I used to like to watch what? Some matches and championships, and so on. They would announce in the newspapers that on such-and-such a date, there would be such-and-such a champion, such-and-such a wrestler, and so on. We attended and they set up a high platform. The champion, whose title was al-Buhara, went up there. He started flexing his muscles. Truly, you see wonders that we do not feel because we are not what? Athletes. What was this athlete wearing? He was wearing what is called in Arabic "tabban," and what is known to you as shorts.

The questioner : Or a swimsuit.

The Shaykh : Or a swimsuit, yes. Shorts, this can be called in the language of scouts. The point is: the garment has no sleeves, it does not cover the thighs. What is covered? The major private parts, meaning the front and the back. Now, when I saw this scene, this late jurisprudential opinion came to my mind, that it is no problem if the garment is tight-fitting as long as it is not transparent. I said, Glory be to Allah. Let him see this scene. There is a person who has some jealousy, he says this scene is permissible in the Shari'ah. Let us say that this garment, sir, is long and covers what? The thighs, but it is tight-fitting on what? It is tight-fitting on the testicles and what is above them. What do you think? Is this disliked? I do not think a person would say it is disliked; he would say it is forbidden. Why? Because all that remains is to reveal his private parts, O my Lord, as You created me. So the belief that it is not a basic condition that the garment not be tight-fitting, this - and peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings - I believe that the group said it is disliked as an act of avoidance; because they - and peace be upon you and Allah's mercy - did not imagine the extent of the ugliness that might be in the near or distant future, of garments that are tight-fitting on the organ as if it were not covered. And finally, he says there is a "kushuk," which is placed on the organ to prevent pregnancy. This was old, before the discovery of what is called the coil and some contraceptive pills.

The questioner : It still exists.

The Shaykh : It still exists. There are "kushuks" placed on a wounded finger. Well, if this "kushuk," this "kaboot" that Abu Abdullah mentions, is placed on the organ and people see it, is it disliked as an act of avoidance? People, fear Allah. This "kaboot" might, as our friend says, be a more beautiful color than the color of the organ itself, and yet it is said what? That this is disliked as an act of avoidance. So may Allah reward you, this answer is perfectly fine according to our principles, and it is practical proof that it is correct that covering is better, but it is not obligatory, rather it is a recommended act. And there is no doubt that covering the hand with any garment, even if it is tight-fitting, is lighter than what? Seeing it without this garment. This is what I have on this issue. Do you want us to pray or continue or hear the question, because I am afraid the brother is long in his story like our story.

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good. Please proceed.

The questioner : As for the sleeves.

The Shaykh : The sleeves.

The questioner : That a woman wears in her hijab, are they included in the previous discussion regarding tight-fitting?

The Shaykh : Clarify.

The questioner : Tight-fitting on the arm, which is a private part. So if a woman wears this sleeve and it is

The Shaykh : Tight-fitting.

The questioner : Tight-fitting.

The Shaykh : It all falls under prohibition, of course, it all falls under it. Well, where is our friend? Others, please proceed. Yes, exactly.
Al-Halabi : A question related to the hadith of al-Khath'amiah, which was mentioned previously.

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
Al-Halabi : In the words of my professor, in your speech regarding the hadith of al-Khath'amiah... it is after the stoning, and I stopped at this word when you said, our Shaykh, this is not definitive but it is possible?

The Shaykh : I mean, our view, our independent legal reasoning that we mentioned in the hijab, is that this was after the stoning. Look, and after the stoning, for us, the first state of release occurs. For others, the first state of release does not occur merely by stoning; it must be what? It must be shaving the head. I do not know if they mention anything else as well. So we say, we are here, and this is part of the meaning of our speech, that we are not fanatical about our opinion. When the issue involves back and forth and there is a possibility of understanding, they say, for example, suppose it was after the stoning, but we do not have evidence that it was after such-and-such, as some of them say. So we assume this and answer it. Suppose it was not after the first state of release. Well, she was in the state of ihram. Is it not permissible for a woman in the state of ihram to lower her veil over her face? Yes. So why do you say... And to complete this topic, and what has been explained is sufficient, I say to all people, and foremost among them the strict Shaykhs on the topic, and those who interpret many hadiths, especially the hadith of al-Khath'amiah. O gentlemen Shaykhs, suppose each of you had a problem that was exactly like that problem. You saw a woman in the state of ihram for Hajj with her face uncovered, and you saw a handsome and bright young man looking at her, and she looking at him, and she is beautiful. What would you do? What would you do? I am telling you now, what do you suppose the position of these Shaykhs would be?

The questioner : They would order the girl to cover her face.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. This is what is supposed to be said, in the best way: "O daughter of the faithful, cover your face."

The questioner : This is the reality, and it has happened many times in the Sacred Mosque: "Cover your face, cover your face."

The Shaykh : Cover your face, O daughter of the noble family. The man is looking at you, and we fear Satan, and so on. And if he uses bad manners, he says, "It is forbidden, fear Allah." These groups to whom he is pointing like this, are they doing it correctly? They are enjoining the good, but with some harshness and severity. However, we did not see the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) take this path, and he is the master of those who enjoin good and forbid evil, and he is the Lord of practical wisdom. What did he do? He said, "Turn your face to that side," instead of turning his face to that side, he said, "Cover your face, O daughter of the noble family." But he did not do that. And I tell you a story: one of our relatives went with his wife to Najd to visit one of the noble scholars there. Because his wife was fully veiled but had her face uncovered, the scholar did not host them as guests for even an hour. Why? This is a traveler, O people, fear Allah. This exposure was affirmed by the majority of scholars. She is uncovered. If this is the position of their scholar, what would they have done if they had seen what our Prophet (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) saw? What would they have done with the woman of Khath'am? They would have attacked her, they would have shouted at her. But the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do any of that. Why? To show people that there is a permissible matter, which is that a woman is free to uncover her face and cover it, and covering is better. But if the wise Shari'ah permits a woman to uncover her face, it does not permit any young man to cast his gaze at her. If he does, he is the one who is stopped, not she, because she did not violate the rule. Who is the violator? It is the young man who shot his arrows at her, who cast his gaze at her. He is the one who is held accountable by the Shari'ah. For this reason, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), seeing him as the wise one who perceives the treatment of sudden ailments, said to al-Fadl, "Be patient and direct your gaze to the other side, do not look at her." He could have looked at her and said to her, "Lower your veil over your face, and cut off the root of Satan, cut off the root of Satan." But the Messenger did not do that. Therefore, we see that the position of those who are arrogant with an opinion contrary to the Sunnah will contradict the practical Sunnah of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), whether they like it or not. There is no way for them except that. And we say, this is enough for you: this difference between us, and every vessel emits what is in it.
Abu Layla : A practical matter, O my Shaykh. There is a practical thing that happens with some women who are veiled over the face: she may look at the man as she pleases without the man seeing her. What do we say to such a woman?

The Shaykh And so we said, if the matter is that they philosophize the issue and, unfortunately, do not stand by the transmitted evidence, trying to convince people with human emotions, saying, "The most beautiful thing about a woman is her face. How can it be that the Shari'ah allows a woman to uncover her face, when the most beautiful thing about a woman is her face?" We said, this statement is correct, but you are discussing the issue by opinion, by contemplation, that is, by what resembles philosophy by theory. So, following you in this philosophy, we say, meaning quoting from their biographies and not from their guidance, we say, "The most beautiful thing about a woman is her eyes." So, cover them, cover them. Do not allow her to uncover her eyes, because the most beautiful thing about a woman is her eyes. Is there a problem with this? No. A woman must see her path. May Allah reward you well. With one eye or two? No, with two. No, you have contradicted the text. The text says with one eye. The text they argue with, one of them is weak from Ibn 'Abbas as we mentioned, and the other is authentic but from a Tabi'i, and it is not marfu'. And then we said finally, if the matter is so, then cover the faces of your young men from your women. Cover the faces of your young men from your women. Look, I imagine that Abu 'Abdullah, when he was a young man, was a temptation for women—(may Allah have mercy on him) he laughed—and without a doubt, he would have had to put on a handkerchief so that women would not be tempted by him—(laughter)The Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him)—No, we do not have a text that orders what? Allahu Akbar, O people. By Allah, when a person reads the responses of these people, he is amazed at their philosophy. It reached the point where they said that if there is a handsome young boy, it is not permissible for him to appear as women appear; he must put on a handkerchief. They said this. O people, where have you gone from the saying of Allah the Exalted: The solution to the problem is not merely by covering; it requires a psychological deterrent. The psychological deterrent is what our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) referred to when He said Why did He address the women? Because they must see the most beautiful thing in men, and according to their expression, that is the face. And why did He say to the men ... and to the woman, which is the face. And so He said to both groups, "Lower your gazes from one another." What do they say? It is the deactivation of the texts of the Book and the Sunnah. They lower their gazes, meaning like this, as our companion said, "At that time, the wind came and uncovered the veil, for example, from the face. And what? He saw and lowered his gaze." O brother, the wind is not going to allow you. It is not going to allow you to enable your gaze or your sight to take the second look. No, it is not that the time passes and he wins, but there is something fixed and uncovered; lower your gaze from it. And so is the upbringing in Islam, not by coercion: "O Allah, veil the woman, even in her face, even in herself, it is not permissible for her to breathe like people." We know some women that if they put a veil like this under their eyes, they become uncomfortable.