What is the ruling on forbidding evil in matters of scholarly disagreement, such as a woman uncovering her face?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May the peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you, esteemed Shaykh.
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and Allah's mercy and blessings.
The questioner : Should one forbid a woman who uncovers her face, or should one forbid the statement that there is no forbidding of evil in matters of scholarly disagreement?
The Shaykh : If we were to say that there is no forbidding of evil in matters of scholarly disagreement, the entire religion would be lost, because you hardly find a matter in which there is no disagreement among scholars. For example, suppose a man touched his wife with desire, ate camel meat, and then stood up to pray. He says, "I follow Imam Ahmad in that touching a woman does not invalidate the ablution, and I follow al-Shafi'i in that camel meat does not invalidate the ablution, and I will pray." Is his prayer now valid?
According to both opinions, it is not valid. Because if it is not invalidated by the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, it is invalidated by the school of al-Shafi'i, and if it is not invalidated by the school of Imam al-Shafi'i, it is invalidated by the school of Imam Ahmad. Thus, a person becomes misguided. Matters of scholarly disagreement are divided into two categories:
One category consists of matters of independent legal reasoning in which disagreement is permissible, meaning that the disagreement is truly established and has a share of consideration. In these, there is no forbidding of evil directed at the scholar qualified to derive rulings. As for the general public, they are bound by the position of the scholars of their land, so that the general public do not become unruly. Because if we were to tell the layperson, "You may take whichever opinion passes by you," the Muslim community would not be one community. For this reason, our Shaykh, Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him), said: "The laypeople follow the school of their scholars". For example, here in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it is obligatory for a woman to cover her face, so we bind our women to this. Even if a woman were to say to us, "I will follow such-and-such a school," we would say, "No. You are a layperson who has not reached the level of independent legal reasoning. You only want to follow this school because it is a dispensation, and following dispensations is forbidden."
However, if a scholar comes to us whose independent legal reasoning has led him to conclude that there is no blame on a woman for uncovering her face, and he says, "I will allow my wife to uncover her face," we would say, "There is nothing wrong with that." But he should not allow her to uncover her face in a conservative land where faces are covered. This is prohibited because it corrupts others, and because the matter is agreed upon in that covering the face is preferable, though there is disagreement regarding its obligation. If covering the face is preferable, we are not binding him with what is forbidden in his school; rather, we are binding him with what is preferable. This is to prevent people among us from following dispensations and causing corruption.
The questioner : If he goes to his own country?
The Shaykh : If he goes to his own country, he is free.
The questioner : ...Do we forbid him?
The Shaykh : We do not forbid him.
The questioner : If he is in our country, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : In reality, this is a second question, but it slipped my mind. If he is in their country, we do not forbid them, because, as I told you, there is no forbidding of evil in matters of independent legal reasoning if they have a share of consideration. But in our country, we bind him to the hijab, not because we are binding him to our opinion, but so that harm does not occur. We say, "We are not binding you with anything forbidden for you, so that you do not say we have wronged you. We have bound you with what is the preferable of the two matters in your view, in order to protect our women." Yes, that is correct.
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and Allah's mercy and blessings.
The questioner : Should one forbid a woman who uncovers her face, or should one forbid the statement that there is no forbidding of evil in matters of scholarly disagreement?
The Shaykh : If we were to say that there is no forbidding of evil in matters of scholarly disagreement, the entire religion would be lost, because you hardly find a matter in which there is no disagreement among scholars. For example, suppose a man touched his wife with desire, ate camel meat, and then stood up to pray. He says, "I follow Imam Ahmad in that touching a woman does not invalidate the ablution, and I follow al-Shafi'i in that camel meat does not invalidate the ablution, and I will pray." Is his prayer now valid?
According to both opinions, it is not valid. Because if it is not invalidated by the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, it is invalidated by the school of al-Shafi'i, and if it is not invalidated by the school of Imam al-Shafi'i, it is invalidated by the school of Imam Ahmad. Thus, a person becomes misguided. Matters of scholarly disagreement are divided into two categories:
One category consists of matters of independent legal reasoning in which disagreement is permissible, meaning that the disagreement is truly established and has a share of consideration. In these, there is no forbidding of evil directed at the scholar qualified to derive rulings. As for the general public, they are bound by the position of the scholars of their land, so that the general public do not become unruly. Because if we were to tell the layperson, "You may take whichever opinion passes by you," the Muslim community would not be one community. For this reason, our Shaykh, Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him), said: "The laypeople follow the school of their scholars". For example, here in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it is obligatory for a woman to cover her face, so we bind our women to this. Even if a woman were to say to us, "I will follow such-and-such a school," we would say, "No. You are a layperson who has not reached the level of independent legal reasoning. You only want to follow this school because it is a dispensation, and following dispensations is forbidden."
However, if a scholar comes to us whose independent legal reasoning has led him to conclude that there is no blame on a woman for uncovering her face, and he says, "I will allow my wife to uncover her face," we would say, "There is nothing wrong with that." But he should not allow her to uncover her face in a conservative land where faces are covered. This is prohibited because it corrupts others, and because the matter is agreed upon in that covering the face is preferable, though there is disagreement regarding its obligation. If covering the face is preferable, we are not binding him with what is forbidden in his school; rather, we are binding him with what is preferable. This is to prevent people among us from following dispensations and causing corruption.
The questioner : If he goes to his own country?
The Shaykh : If he goes to his own country, he is free.
The questioner : ...Do we forbid him?
The Shaykh : We do not forbid him.
The questioner : If he is in our country, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : In reality, this is a second question, but it slipped my mind. If he is in their country, we do not forbid them, because, as I told you, there is no forbidding of evil in matters of independent legal reasoning if they have a share of consideration. But in our country, we bind him to the hijab, not because we are binding him to our opinion, but so that harm does not occur. We say, "We are not binding you with anything forbidden for you, so that you do not say we have wronged you. We have bound you with what is the preferable of the two matters in your view, in order to protect our women." Yes, that is correct.