A woman asks: Our scholars in Morocco say that hijab means a woman covers her body except her face and hands, but you here say she covers her entire body. What is the stronger of the two opinions?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : A woman asks: Our scholars in Morocco say that hijab means a woman covers her body except her face and hands, but you here say she covers her entire body. What is the stronger of the two opinions?
The Shaykh : The stronger opinion is what is indicated by the Book and the Sunnah. When a person reflects on the evidence from the Book and the Sunnah, it becomes clear to him that the stronger opinion is that a woman must cover her face before she covers her head and before she covers her feet. It is astonishing regarding the scholars who permit uncovering the face but forbid uncovering the feet. If you reflect on this face, you will find it a strange opinion. Which is more of a trial: the face or the feet? The face, meaning a person is tempted by a woman when he sees her face, or when he sees her feet? Which is more intense? The face. Therefore, the suitor does not say to the messenger he sends to propose to a woman, "Think about her feet, what do her feet look like? Are the fingers aligned or spread apart? Is the thumb large or small? Is the little finger long or short?" He does not ask about this, but he asks about what? The face, which is the most important thing, for it is the place of desire and the place of temptation. The original basis or wisdom of the obligation of hijab is to avoid temptation. Therefore, when it is needed, uncovering it is permissible. If a suitor wants to propose to a woman, is it permissible for her to uncover her face for him? Yes, it is permissible without seclusion. There must be her mahrams (relatives she cannot marry) with her. Why is it permissible? Because the original basis of the obligation to cover the face is to avoid what? Temptation. So if that is the basis, how can the great Shari'ah, which is built on wisdom, permit a woman to uncover her face and then forbid her from uncovering her feet? This is far from wisdom. We have, and others have, treatises on this subject in which the obligation to cover the face has been clarified, and answers have been given to the doubtful evidence that those who permit uncovering the face cling to.
The Shaykh : The stronger opinion is what is indicated by the Book and the Sunnah. When a person reflects on the evidence from the Book and the Sunnah, it becomes clear to him that the stronger opinion is that a woman must cover her face before she covers her head and before she covers her feet. It is astonishing regarding the scholars who permit uncovering the face but forbid uncovering the feet. If you reflect on this face, you will find it a strange opinion. Which is more of a trial: the face or the feet? The face, meaning a person is tempted by a woman when he sees her face, or when he sees her feet? Which is more intense? The face. Therefore, the suitor does not say to the messenger he sends to propose to a woman, "Think about her feet, what do her feet look like? Are the fingers aligned or spread apart? Is the thumb large or small? Is the little finger long or short?" He does not ask about this, but he asks about what? The face, which is the most important thing, for it is the place of desire and the place of temptation. The original basis or wisdom of the obligation of hijab is to avoid temptation. Therefore, when it is needed, uncovering it is permissible. If a suitor wants to propose to a woman, is it permissible for her to uncover her face for him? Yes, it is permissible without seclusion. There must be her mahrams (relatives she cannot marry) with her. Why is it permissible? Because the original basis of the obligation to cover the face is to avoid what? Temptation. So if that is the basis, how can the great Shari'ah, which is built on wisdom, permit a woman to uncover her face and then forbid her from uncovering her feet? This is far from wisdom. We have, and others have, treatises on this subject in which the obligation to cover the face has been clarified, and answers have been given to the doubtful evidence that those who permit uncovering the face cling to.