Much has been said on the subject of hijab and niqab, and the opinions of scholars and jurists have differed. Some hold that it is forbidden for a woman to uncover her face and hands, and
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : This questioner is an Egyptian resident in the Kingdom in Buraydah. He says in this question: "Your Eminence, the Shaykh, peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings. After much has been said on the subject of hijab and niqab, and the opinions of scholars and jurists have differed, some holding that it is forbidden for a woman to uncover her face and hands, and others not considering it forbidden unless there is a fear of fitnah (trial, discord or temptation). It is strange that each side relies on certain Qur'anic verses and Prophetic hadiths. The group that considers it forbidden relies on the verses of hijab in Surat al-Nur and others. The group that does not consider it forbidden relies on the fact that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, commanded the believers to lower their gaze. They say that lowering the gaze does not occur unless a woman uncovers her face. So how can one lower the gaze if the woman covers her face? And how does a woman lower her gaze from men if she covers her face? What is your opinion on this matter, and what is your opinion, may Allah preserve you, O Shaykh Muhammad, on the differences in such matters and others? And what is obligatory for us Muslims in these differences, especially since each side relies on authentic verses and hadiths? May Allah reward you with good?"
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and I send prayers and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and his Companions, and those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment. This is a well-focused question, and I am pleased with its context in this form, because it indicates that this questioner has taken care in this issue, which is the issue of a woman uncovering her face to non-mahram (a relative one may not marry) men and her husband. There is no doubt that scholars have differed on this, and each has presented his arguments. But we have a scale that Allah, the Exalted, has commanded us to return to, which is the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). When He, Blessed and Exalted is He, said:[Ash-Shuraa 42:10] and He, the Exalted, said: [An-Nisa 4:59] By considering the evidence cited by each side, it becomes clear that the evidence supports those who said that it is obligatory to cover the face from men who are not mahram (a relative one may not marry) and the husband. We have presented evidence in a book, or rather a small treatise, which we named "Al-Hijab", in which we clarified the evidence from the Book and the Sunnah and reasoning regarding the obligation of a woman covering her face from men who are not mahram (a relative one may not marry) and the husband. We answered the evidence of those who say it is permissible with two answers, one general and the other detailed.
As for the general answer, we mentioned that the texts that indicate the permissibility of uncovering the face to non-mahram (a relative one may not marry) men and the husband can be understood in one of two ways. Either they refer to the time before the obligation of hijab, because the Muslims had two states: the first state was before hijab, where the face and hands were uncovered, and the second state was after hijab, where there was a command to cover the face and hands. This is a general answer. Or, as part of the general answer, there may be specific cases with special reasons that appear to permit uncovering the face to non-mahram (a relative one may not marry) men and the husband.
We also answered the evidence of those who say it is permissible in detail. It is good for the brother questioner to refer to this treatise and to other works written by scholars, especially the book "The Return of Hijab", which is a lengthy book that satisfies the need and quenches the thirst.
I say to this brother questioner that, even if there were no evidence for the obligation of covering the face from men who are not mahram (a relative one may not marry) and the husband, or if the evidence were balanced—evidence for the obligation of covering it and evidence for the permissibility of uncovering it—the current situation necessitates compelling women to cover their faces. This is because of the prevalence of fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) and the weakness of religion. As fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) increases and religion weakens, it is necessary to establish deterrents and prohibitions that prevent reaching what leads to fitnah (trial, discord or temptation). For this, there is a principle in the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law). Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said:[Al-An'am 6:108] He prohibited cursing the gods of the polytheists because if we cursed their gods, they would curse our God, who is Allah, Mighty and Majestic. If we curse their gods, they are deserving of cursing, but if they curse Allah, Mighty and Majestic, they are cursing Allah, the Exalted, as an enemy without knowledge. So Allah, the Exalted, closed this door that is a means or a path to cursing Allah, Mighty and Majestic, even though it is praiseworthy that we are commanded to curse the gods of the polytheists and clarify their falsehood. But if it leads to cursing one who does not deserve cursing, which is Allah, Mighty and Majestic, due to the perfection of His attributes, then we are prohibited from cursing their gods.
When the drinking of khamr (intoxicants) became widespread among the Muslims after the many conquests in the time of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), the Companions consulted on how to increase its punishment, which had been about forty lashes. They suggested to him that he raise this punishment to the lightest of the hudud (the fixed Qur'anic punishments), which is eighty lashes, the hadd (fixed punishment) for qadhf (falsely accusing someone of zina). The hadd for qadhf (falsely accusing someone of zina) is eighty lashes. The Companions advised the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, to raise the punishment for the drinker of khamr (intoxicants) to eighty lashes, so he raised it, increasing the punishment due to the prevalence of its consumption among people.
When people became careless about the matter of the triple divorce in one sitting, which is taking the verses of Allah in mockery, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) saw that he should compel the one who divorced three times to what he had obligated himself to, and prevent him from taking back his wife. Muslim narrated in his Sahih from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said: "The triple divorce in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and in the time of Abu Bakr, and for two years of the caliphate of 'Umar, was considered one divorce. When people became careless in this matter, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: 'I see that people have become careless in a matter in which they used to be cautious. If we were to enforce it upon them, we would do so.' So he enforced it upon them."
So, even if the texts regarding the permissibility of a woman uncovering her face to non-mahram (a relative one may not marry) men and the husband, or its impermissibility, are balanced, in this time it is necessary to proceed on the safer and better path to prevent fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), evil, and corruption, which is compelling the woman to hijab, meaning covering her face.
It is not hidden from us all what has happened in the countries where the people have made it permissible to uncover the face and hands, in terms of the immodesty in that, until the woman uncovered her arms, her neck, and part of her head or her whole head, as is seen in other countries. The woman will never stop at the limit that is the subject of disagreement, which is uncovering only the face and hands, but she will be immodest in covering what is beyond that. For this reason, we see that it is obligatory for the woman to cover her face from men who are not mahram (a relative one may not marry) and the husband. We have evidence for this, and as I said, if the evidence were balanced in this matter, the legal principles would necessitate preventing women from uncovering their faces in this era.
As for the niqab, there is no doubt that it is permissible, and it was practiced in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This is indicated by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding the woman in a state of ihram: "She should not wear a niqab." This indicates that the niqab was known among them. However, the niqab known in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was a niqab to the extent of necessity; that is, the woman would not wear a niqab except to the extent that she could see the road. She would open an opening for her eyes that was only the size of the eyes. But today, many women have expanded the niqab significantly, so the woman wears a wide niqab from which the entire eye, and even the eyebrow, the edge of the forehead, and the edge of the cheek, are visible. Perhaps women expand it even further. For this reason, we see it being prohibited from the perspective of policy and not exceeding the limit of the permissible niqab. We do not see it being prohibited because the evidence indicates its prohibition, but rather because the evidence indicates its permissibility. However, if the permissible thing leads to something forbidden that cannot be regulated, then it is wise to prohibit it in order to avert the harm that results from declaring it permissible.
As for the questioner's statement that Allah the Exalted commanded the believers to lower their gazes, and that this indicates there is something to be looked at, it is said that if this verse is not evidence for the one who said that uncovering the face is permissible, then it is not evidence for him. This is because the command of Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, to lower the gaze does not mean, nor does it necessitate, that the woman must uncover her face. Indeed, a person may look at a woman in terms of the size of her body, her gait, and the like. Also, a person may have an initial glance when he faces a woman face to face before she becomes aware of him or before he becomes aware of her. For this reason, it came in the hadith: If it happens that a man faces a woman who is uncovering her face, then it is obligatory for him to lower his gaze, and it is obligatory for her in this situation to cover her face.
He asks: What is the position of a person regarding the disagreement of scholars? The answer to this is that we say: If the person is a student of knowledge who can exercise independent legal reasoning and look into the evidence of both parties, he should judge by what he sees to be closer to the truth. This is what is obligatory for him. As for if the person is a layman who does not know, then it is obligatory for him to follow the one he thinks is closer to the truth in his knowledge, his religion, and his trustworthiness. Just as if a person is sick and two doctors disagree on a prescription, by the innate natural disposition, he will take the opinion of the one he sees to be more skilled and closer to the truth. Likewise, in matters of knowledge, a person must follow the one he sees to be closer to the truth, either because of the abundance of his knowledge, or because of his trustworthiness and religion. If he does not know which is stronger in that matter, some scholars have said that he is given a choice: if he wishes, he takes the opinion of this one, and if he wishes, he takes the opinion of that one.
Some scholars said that he should take what is more cautious, meaning the stricter precaution, to clear his conscience. And some scholars said that he should take what is easier, because that is more in accordance with the Shari'ah, as the Islamic religion is ease, as Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, said:[Al-Baqarah 2:185] And as He, the Exalted, said: [Al-Hajj 22:78] And as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: And he said when sending delegations: Meaning that if the opinions of scholars differ before you and you do not have a preference for one over the other, then you take the easier one for these evidences, and because the original state is the innocence of the conscience. If we obligated a person to take the stricter one, that would result in burdening his conscience, and the original state is that it is not burdened. This opinion is stronger in my view, meaning that if scholars differ on two opinions and the evidence is balanced for you in preferring one of the opinions, then you take the easier of the two. And this, meaning taking the easier opinion, applies to what concerns the person himself. However, if that results in harm, then he must refrain from it publicly, meaning it means he must refrain from displaying it and announcing it.
An example of this is if we suppose that a man prefers the opinion that it is permissible for a woman to uncover her face to non-mahram and her husband, but he is in an environment where that is not seen, and its women are committed and veiled. In this case, he does not allow his wife to go out with her face uncovered in a society that has adopted the second opinion, which is the obligation to cover the face, because of the harm to others in that. For it is the custom of people to follow what is easier, whether it is correct or not, except for those whom Allah protects.
And on this basis, we say that the correct opinion is to take the easier one, as long as that does not include harm. If it includes harm, then let him take the easier one only in his own right. Yes.
The questioner : May Allah bless you, O honorable Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and I send prayers and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and his Companions, and those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment. This is a well-focused question, and I am pleased with its context in this form, because it indicates that this questioner has taken care in this issue, which is the issue of a woman uncovering her face to non-mahram (a relative one may not marry) men and her husband. There is no doubt that scholars have differed on this, and each has presented his arguments. But we have a scale that Allah, the Exalted, has commanded us to return to, which is the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). When He, Blessed and Exalted is He, said:
And in anything over which you disagree - its ruling is [to be referred] to Allah.
وَمَا اختَلَفتُم فيهِ مِن شَيءٍ فَحُكمُهُ إِلَى اللَّهِAnd if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.
فَإِن تَنازَعتُم في شَيءٍ فَرُدّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسولِ إِن كُنتُم تُؤمِنونَ بِاللَّهِ وَاليَومِ الآخِرِ ذلِكَ خَيرٌ وَأَحسَنُ تَأويلًاAs for the general answer, we mentioned that the texts that indicate the permissibility of uncovering the face to non-mahram (a relative one may not marry) men and the husband can be understood in one of two ways. Either they refer to the time before the obligation of hijab, because the Muslims had two states: the first state was before hijab, where the face and hands were uncovered, and the second state was after hijab, where there was a command to cover the face and hands. This is a general answer. Or, as part of the general answer, there may be specific cases with special reasons that appear to permit uncovering the face to non-mahram (a relative one may not marry) men and the husband.
We also answered the evidence of those who say it is permissible in detail. It is good for the brother questioner to refer to this treatise and to other works written by scholars, especially the book "The Return of Hijab", which is a lengthy book that satisfies the need and quenches the thirst.
I say to this brother questioner that, even if there were no evidence for the obligation of covering the face from men who are not mahram (a relative one may not marry) and the husband, or if the evidence were balanced—evidence for the obligation of covering it and evidence for the permissibility of uncovering it—the current situation necessitates compelling women to cover their faces. This is because of the prevalence of fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) and the weakness of religion. As fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) increases and religion weakens, it is necessary to establish deterrents and prohibitions that prevent reaching what leads to fitnah (trial, discord or temptation). For this, there is a principle in the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law). Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said:
And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge
وَلا تَسُبُّوا الَّذينَ يَدعونَ مِن دونِ اللَّهِ فَيَسُبُّوا اللَّهَ عَدوًا بِغَيرِ عِلمٍWhen the drinking of khamr (intoxicants) became widespread among the Muslims after the many conquests in the time of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), the Companions consulted on how to increase its punishment, which had been about forty lashes. They suggested to him that he raise this punishment to the lightest of the hudud (the fixed Qur'anic punishments), which is eighty lashes, the hadd (fixed punishment) for qadhf (falsely accusing someone of zina). The hadd for qadhf (falsely accusing someone of zina) is eighty lashes. The Companions advised the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, to raise the punishment for the drinker of khamr (intoxicants) to eighty lashes, so he raised it, increasing the punishment due to the prevalence of its consumption among people.
When people became careless about the matter of the triple divorce in one sitting, which is taking the verses of Allah in mockery, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) saw that he should compel the one who divorced three times to what he had obligated himself to, and prevent him from taking back his wife. Muslim narrated in his Sahih from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said: "The triple divorce in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and in the time of Abu Bakr, and for two years of the caliphate of 'Umar, was considered one divorce. When people became careless in this matter, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: 'I see that people have become careless in a matter in which they used to be cautious. If we were to enforce it upon them, we would do so.' So he enforced it upon them."
So, even if the texts regarding the permissibility of a woman uncovering her face to non-mahram (a relative one may not marry) men and the husband, or its impermissibility, are balanced, in this time it is necessary to proceed on the safer and better path to prevent fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), evil, and corruption, which is compelling the woman to hijab, meaning covering her face.
It is not hidden from us all what has happened in the countries where the people have made it permissible to uncover the face and hands, in terms of the immodesty in that, until the woman uncovered her arms, her neck, and part of her head or her whole head, as is seen in other countries. The woman will never stop at the limit that is the subject of disagreement, which is uncovering only the face and hands, but she will be immodest in covering what is beyond that. For this reason, we see that it is obligatory for the woman to cover her face from men who are not mahram (a relative one may not marry) and the husband. We have evidence for this, and as I said, if the evidence were balanced in this matter, the legal principles would necessitate preventing women from uncovering their faces in this era.
As for the niqab, there is no doubt that it is permissible, and it was practiced in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This is indicated by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding the woman in a state of ihram: "She should not wear a niqab." This indicates that the niqab was known among them. However, the niqab known in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was a niqab to the extent of necessity; that is, the woman would not wear a niqab except to the extent that she could see the road. She would open an opening for her eyes that was only the size of the eyes. But today, many women have expanded the niqab significantly, so the woman wears a wide niqab from which the entire eye, and even the eyebrow, the edge of the forehead, and the edge of the cheek, are visible. Perhaps women expand it even further. For this reason, we see it being prohibited from the perspective of policy and not exceeding the limit of the permissible niqab. We do not see it being prohibited because the evidence indicates its prohibition, but rather because the evidence indicates its permissibility. However, if the permissible thing leads to something forbidden that cannot be regulated, then it is wise to prohibit it in order to avert the harm that results from declaring it permissible.
As for the questioner's statement that Allah the Exalted commanded the believers to lower their gazes, and that this indicates there is something to be looked at, it is said that if this verse is not evidence for the one who said that uncovering the face is permissible, then it is not evidence for him. This is because the command of Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, to lower the gaze does not mean, nor does it necessitate, that the woman must uncover her face. Indeed, a person may look at a woman in terms of the size of her body, her gait, and the like. Also, a person may have an initial glance when he faces a woman face to face before she becomes aware of him or before he becomes aware of her. For this reason, it came in the hadith:
The first glance is yours, but the second glance is not yours
لك النظرة الأولى وليست لك النظرة الثانيةHe asks: What is the position of a person regarding the disagreement of scholars? The answer to this is that we say: If the person is a student of knowledge who can exercise independent legal reasoning and look into the evidence of both parties, he should judge by what he sees to be closer to the truth. This is what is obligatory for him. As for if the person is a layman who does not know, then it is obligatory for him to follow the one he thinks is closer to the truth in his knowledge, his religion, and his trustworthiness. Just as if a person is sick and two doctors disagree on a prescription, by the innate natural disposition, he will take the opinion of the one he sees to be more skilled and closer to the truth. Likewise, in matters of knowledge, a person must follow the one he sees to be closer to the truth, either because of the abundance of his knowledge, or because of his trustworthiness and religion. If he does not know which is stronger in that matter, some scholars have said that he is given a choice: if he wishes, he takes the opinion of this one, and if he wishes, he takes the opinion of that one.
Some scholars said that he should take what is more cautious, meaning the stricter precaution, to clear his conscience. And some scholars said that he should take what is easier, because that is more in accordance with the Shari'ah, as the Islamic religion is ease, as Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, said:
Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship
يريد الله بكم اليسر ولا يريد بكم العسرand has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty
وما جعل عليكم في الدين من حرجIndeed, the religion is ease
إن الدين يسرMake things easy and do not make them difficult, and give glad tidings and do not drive people away. For you have been sent as facilitators, not as those who make things difficult
يسروا ولا تعسروا وبشروا ولا تنفروا فإنما بُعثتم ميسرين ولم تُبعثوا معسرينAn example of this is if we suppose that a man prefers the opinion that it is permissible for a woman to uncover her face to non-mahram and her husband, but he is in an environment where that is not seen, and its women are committed and veiled. In this case, he does not allow his wife to go out with her face uncovered in a society that has adopted the second opinion, which is the obligation to cover the face, because of the harm to others in that. For it is the custom of people to follow what is easier, whether it is correct or not, except for those whom Allah protects.
And on this basis, we say that the correct opinion is to take the easier one, as long as that does not include harm. If it includes harm, then let him take the easier one only in his own right. Yes.
The questioner : May Allah bless you, O honorable Shaykh.