The Exegesis of the Saying of Allah the Exalted: << . . . . . . and let them draw their head coverings over their chests, and not display their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers or the fathers

To strike a thing upon a thing means to cast it upon it in close contact with it. From this is saying, “I struck my hand upon his hand” or “upon my thigh” or the like. This is the meaning of *dharb* (striking). *Khumur* is the plural of *khimar*, which is what a woman covers her head with. *Juyub* is the plural of *jayb*, which is the collar of the garment, called a *jayb*. People still call it by this name today. Allah the Exalted made it obligatory, “*wa liyadribna* (and let them draw)”; the *lam* is the *lam* of command. The *sukun* (quiescence) in His saying “*li-yadribna*” is not a *sukun* of inflection, but a *sukun* of construction, because the verb is connected to the *nun* of the women, and it is constructed on *sukun* regardless of the case. Here, the command of Allah, Glorified and Exalted, is that the woman should draw her *khimar* over her *jayb*. A necessary consequence of this is that it descends from the head to the *jayb*. So, is the intended meaning of drawing the *khimar* over the *jayb* that it comes from under the face, such that the face remains uncovered and the *jayb* is covered? Or is the meaning that she draws the *khimar* over the *jayb* passing over the face? Because this is the closest meaning: the *khimar* descends from the top, as it is above the head, then the *jayb*. If the *jayb* must be covered, then the face is all the more so. The women in the *jahiliyyah* (pre-Islamic age of ignorance), according to what some exegetes said, would let the *khimar* hang from behind them, and it would not come near their face or their *jayb*. For this reason, Allah the Exalted commanded the women to draw their *khumur* over their *juyub*. As for those who hold that the intended meaning of *zayn* (adornment) is the face and the hands, they say she should draw her *khimar* over her *jayb* from below, dragging it like this, so that it covers the *jayb* and uncovers the face, even though the face is a greater source of temptation than the *jayb*. And what we say is: “*wa la yubdina* (and not display) *biha* (with it),” meaning they cover the heads, necks, and chests with *muqam'* (head coverings), which is the plural of *muqmi'*; it is what a woman covers herself with, what she veils herself with, meaning what we call now the *ghutrah*. “And not display their hidden adornment, which is everything except the face and the hands, except to their *bu'ul* (husbands), which is the plural of *ba'l*, meaning husband” , and so on. Look, the first one is , so he excepted from the adornment. And here, , he excepted from those to whom the adornment is displayed. There, he excepted the adornment itself, and here he excepted the person to whom the adornment is displayed. There is a difference between them. Now, if we take the apparent meaning of the verse, “and not display their adornment except to their *bu'ul*,” and we say the intended meaning of *zayn* is the first *zayn* (the apparent adornment), then it becomes: “and not display their adornment except what appears of it,” and “and not display this adornment either except to their *bu'ul*.” In that case, we would have specified the generality of what came before in the verse. I hope we pay attention: we are now prohibited from displaying adornment in two places. From the first place, the adornment was excepted, and from the second place, the person to whom the adornment is displayed was excepted. Do we make the two exceptions apply to one matter and say, “and not display their adornment except what appears of it, to their *bu'ul*,” and so on? In that case, it would be forbidden to display adornment to anyone other than those who were excepted, absolutely, both the apparent and the hidden. The answer is: this is a possibility. The other possibility is to say that there are two types of adornment: apparent adornment that is displayed to everyone, and hidden adornment that is not displayed except to these people. The author proceeded on the basis that the intended meaning of *zayn* here is this, not the first *zayn*. So the first *zayn* is general, and what appears of it is permitted for everyone. The second is not general; rather, the intended meaning is the hidden adornment that does not appear, or that it is not necessary for it to appear. This author says, “and it is everything except the face and the hands,” based on the interpretation of the first one, on the interpretation of his saying “the face and the hands.” But the correct view is that the intended meaning of the hidden adornment is that which it is not necessary for it to appear. This hidden adornment, it is not necessary for it to appear, meaning the inner garments, as the common people say. This is not displayed except to those mentioned, except to their *bu'ul*, and so on.
*Bu'ul* is the plural of *ba'l*, which is the husband. Or their fathers, and this includes the nearest father and those above him, such as grandfathers. Know that the chapter of prohibition is not the chapter of inheritance. In the chapter of inheritance, fatherhood and sonship include only those who are related to you through the male line, meaning through masculinity. So, for example, the son of a daughter and the father of the mother have no connection to inheritance. But in the chapter of prohibition, the prohibition of marriage and what is connected to it, it includes fathers from the father’s side and from the mother’s side. That is, there is no difference between one in whom there is a female between you and him and one in whom there is no female between you and him. There, in the chapter of brotherhood and descendants in inheritance, the one in whom there is a female from the fathers does not inherit and does not enter into the fathers. But here, the one in whom there is a female and the one in whom there is no female are on the same level. Therefore, we say that “or their fathers” includes the nearest father and the grandfather from the father’s side and from the mother’s side. Or the fathers of their *bu'ul* (husbands), the same thing. The fathers of the *ba'l* (husband): it is permissible for the woman to display to them the hidden adornment, just as she displays the apparent adornment to anyone. The fathers of the *ba'l* here include the father of the husband and his grandfather from the father’s side and from the mother’s side. For this reason, the father of the husband is a *mahram* (a relative one may not marry) to whom? To the wife. And if he is elevated, he is a *mahram* to the wife. Yes, to the wife of his son, and if she is descended, it is the same, whether he married her and consummated the marriage, or he married her and divorced her before consummation and died from her. In that case, his fathers are *mahram* to her.
As for the son, here we say what was said about the father. There is no difference between the son by the direct line, who is connected to the person by a male through the male line, and the son who is connected through the female line. So, for example, the son of a daughter enters into the sons, or does he not enter? And the sons of their *bu'ul* (husbands) also enter. The son of the husband: it is permissible for the wife to display to him the hidden adornment. Yes, good. The son of the daughter of the husband is also the same. And on this basis, all those who branch off from the husband, males and females, however far down the line, are *mahram* to the wife of their grandfather. However, in this issue, what is required is consummation? The woman, because they are from the *rababah* (stepdaughters), and for *rababah*, consummation is necessary. So if a man married a woman, contracted the marriage with her, then divorced her or died from her before consummation, his sons would not be *mahram* to her. The reason is that consummation is a condition for that, as Allah the Exalted said,
Whether they are full brothers, brothers on the father’s side, or brothers on the mother’s side, or the sons of their brothers, however far down the line. Good. The sons of their brothers, what do they become to them? Paternal aunts. So the paternal aunt is permitted to display to her brother’s son what is hidden of her adornment, because he is one of her *mahram*. Or , and they have maternal aunts. So the maternal aunt is permitted to display to her sister’s son what is hidden of her adornment, because he is one of her *mahram*. Good. Is there anyone among the relatives who are *mahram* and not mentioned in this verse? Yes, the paternal uncles are not mentioned in this verse.
And the maternal uncles.
And the maternal uncles, even though they are among the *mahram*, and the verse excepted, “and not display their adornment except to their *bu'ul*.” And on this basis, it is not permissible for the woman to display to the paternal uncle or the maternal uncle the hidden adornment, because “and not display their adornment except to these” is restricted. And on this basis, not every *mahram* is one to whom it is permissible to display the adornment. Why? He said: because displaying the adornment to the paternal uncle or the maternal uncle, it is feared that he will describe it to his son, because the son of the paternal uncle is permitted to marry his paternal cousin, or is he not? And the son of the maternal uncle is permitted to marry his maternal cousin. So for that reason, they said: do not display the adornment to the paternal uncle or the maternal uncle, even though they are among the *mahram*. And in this is a clear indication or proof that the intended meaning of *zayn* here, as the author said, is not “everything except the face and the hands,” because everything except the face and the hands is permitted to be displayed to the paternal uncle and the maternal uncle, because they are among the *mahram*. But this adornment is the hidden adornment of clothing. And on this basis, it is not permissible for the woman to adorn herself in the presence of her paternal uncle or her maternal uncle. So, breastfeeding is not mentioned here. Is its ruling the same as what is mentioned here, or not? Give me evidence?
The student : It is known that what is prohibited by breastfeeding is prohibited by blood relation.

The Shaykh : It is known that what is prohibited by breastfeeding is prohibited by blood relation, but the issue is not from the chapter of prohibition. For this reason, the paternal uncle and the maternal uncle were omitted.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : The adornment, the intention is not that he sees her face or her hands.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Why here, the paternal uncle, is it permissible for him to look at the woman what the brother looks at in terms of *mahram* status? No, because this is in terms of *mahram* status, not in terms of adornment. He is undoubtedly a *mahram* to her. It is permissible for him to look at her cheeks, and likewise, does she uncover her face to him?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because the reality of the matter is that the verse indicating the display of adornment to non-mahram relatives demonstrates that the issue of displaying adornment is distinct from the issue of mahram status. If the maternal uncle and paternal uncle are not to be shown the adornment, even though they are mahram, that indicates that the issue of displaying adornment is separate from the issue of mahram status. In fact, this matter is very sensitive. Therefore, regarding brothers through breastfeeding, according to ... and according to everyone, it is permissible for a woman to adorn herself for them, just as she adorns herself for her brothers, even though the matter is very serious. How many people, may Allah protect us, have committed fornication with their sisters through breastfeeding because the bond is not a bond of kinship or lineage, but a bond of breastfeeding, which is weaker than the bond of lineage and kinship. Therefore, it happens with some people, may Allah protect us, except those whom Allah protects, that their desire is stirred and they take pleasure in looking at their sisters or aunts through breastfeeding. ... Therefore, some scholars disliked a woman displaying her adornment to her mahram relatives through breastfeeding, and said that there is error in doing so. Therefore, Allah the Exalted did not address breastfeeding at all in this verse, not at all. This is not a matter of prohibition; if it were a matter of prohibition, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: The matter here is displaying adornment, and it is now known, based on this restriction, that it has no relation to the issue of mahram status; it has no relation. This is indicated by the fact that He excluded certain things from the mahram, such as those whom your right hands possess, and followers who have no desire, and children who have not yet come to know the private parts of women. This indicates that this issue has no relation to the issue of mahram status, but is an independent issue returning to a sensitive and precise matter. Yes, because all this mentioned phrase is an exception in protecting chastity, purifying souls, and keeping them away from defilement. Therefore, you find in it precautions of the utmost importance. What appears to me from the context of the verse is that it must be kept in its generality and its specificity as well, and that what was excluded in it has the ruling of what was excluded, and what was not mentioned in it remains under the prohibition to the end, and the rest remains under the prohibition.
The student: ...?

The Shaykh : Because they are actually confused, and there is no scene like this.
The student: ...?

The Shaykh : And some scholars said it this way, and although we may accept it, we may not accept it, because not every maternal uncle is of this caliber, nor is the majority of maternal uncles of this caliber, to the point that we say he cannot be trusted. Rather, we say that those whom Allah excludes remain under the generality. So the paternal uncle and maternal uncle are not to be shown the hidden adornment, unlike those mentioned. And I tell you that there is no relation between this verse and the issue of mahram status, as evidenced by the existence of those who are not mahram, such as those owned by the right hand and followers, for whom displaying adornment was permitted, while some mahram were left out, namely the paternal uncle and maternal uncle. Someone might say: If it is permissible to display adornment to the sons of a brother and the sons of a sister because they are their paternal or maternal uncles, why is the reverse not the case? Because the aunt and the maternal uncle, what are they? The daughter of her brother or the daughter of her brother? The paternal uncle is the brother of her father, and the maternal uncle is the brother of her mother. If it is permissible for her to display her adornment to her brother's son and her sister's son, is the reverse not permissible because the bond is the same? We say no, because her brother's son and her sister's son feel that she has a higher status over them because she is their aunt and maternal aunt, so they respect her, and it is not she who respects them. But the issue of the paternal uncle and maternal uncle, by their higher status over their brother's daughter and sister's daughter, is that she respects them, and they do not respect her. Therefore, the analogy here is not appropriate, and the verse has no room for analogy at all, because it contains specific details: so-and-so and so-and-so, it is not general rules.