Home About Us Categories Glossary In The News Disclaimer Contact RSS Feed Subscribe by E-mail

Is Wearing the Niqb Obligatory for Women?

WebbTranslators | May 10, 2009 3:38 am

By Ysuf al-Qaraw | Translated by U. Abdullah The Question: We have read what you have written in defense of the niqb, in response to the attacks of those who say that the niqb is an innovation (bida) that was introduced to Muslim society, and has nothing to do with Islm; and you demonstrated that the view that obligates women to wear the niqb is one that has in fact existed within Islamic fiqh. You have thereby given a fair treatment of the niqb, and those who choose to wear it, despite the well-known fact that your opinion on the issue is that it is not an obligation to wear the niqb. Now we ask thatjust as you have been fair in your treatment of the niqb, against those who would do away with the headscarf altogetherthat you give a fair hearing to those of us who wear only the headscarf, against those sisters and brothers who call to the niqb, and ceaselessly attack us for not covering our faces, despite its being the focal point of temptation (fitna) and centre of beauty (majma al-masin), and that we act contrary to the Qurn and the sunna, and the way of the [pious] predecessors by uncovering our faces. You yourself may have been attacked, on occasion, due to your championing the headscarf rather than the niqb, as well as the late Shaykh Muammad al-Ghazl who some of the scholars from the Gulf tried to refute. We hope that you will not refer us to what you have already written in your book alall wa-l-arm (The Lawful and the Prohibited), and in your book, Fatw Muira

(Contemporary Fatws), even if there is sufficiency in them, for we would like more explanation, as a proof for [our viewpoint], showing the path, and banishing misgivings with certainty, so that we can end the perpetual controversy surrounding this issue. May God place the truth upon your tongue and in your pen. The Answer: It seems that my dear daughters and sisters have not left me any excuse to remain silent, and suffice with what I have already written. I know that the controversy concerning this differed-upon issue will not end with an erudite essay or book. For as long as the causes for difference remain, those differences will not disappear among the people, even if they are sincere and religious Muslims. In fact, religiosity is often the cause for the vehement disagreement, as each side feels strongly that their view is the Truth, and that it is the real religious practice on the basis of which people will be rewarded or punished. The controversy will remain as long as the texts themselvesfrom which rulings are derivedare amenable to disagreement with respect to their authenticity and meaning. [They will remain] as long as the minds of men are of varying strength in deriving rulings [from the texts], and [differ as to] the extent to which texts are to be taken literally, or in their general tenor, or whether one should adopt a more stringent position or a more lenient one, or a precautious position or an easier one. The controversy will remain as long as there are those who adopt the rigorous stances of Ibn Umar, and those who adopt the dispensations of Ibn Abbs; as long as there are those among them who will pray Ar on the way, and those who will not pray anywhere but in [the vicinity of] Ban Quraya. It is of the mercy of God that these kinds of differences are not forbidden and entail no sin. The [scholars] who hold the incorrect opinion are excused. In fact they earn a single reward, and there are even those who say that no one is wrong in these juristic judgments; in fact they are all correct. And despite my belief that this disagreement shall remain, I have no choice but to respond to the question of my daughters and sisters, repeating myself on this topic, to provide further clarification; so that perhaps God may grant me the ability to present a balanced word on the matter, that will do away with the disputation, or at least temper its stridency, and reduce its intensity, so that the consciences of those who wear the hijb may rest, and the callers to the niqb may be assuaged.

Showing that most scholars are in favor of not covering the face and hands

I wish to begin by emphasizing a fact that does not really need emphasis as it is eminently and undeniably well-known among the people of knowledge. It is that the view that wearing the niqb is not an obligation, and that it is permissible for a Muslim woman to uncover her face in front of unrelated men, is the view of the majority of the legal scholars (jumhr al-fuqah), since the time of the Companions (aba). So there is no justification for this contrived clamor, this artificial storm, that some sincere people, who are not scholars, and some zealous students of knowledge, have created against what the illustrious diya, Shaykh Muammad al-Ghazl has said in some of his books and articles. They give the impression that he has invented new and unprecedented opinions, while they are in fact no more than the statements of respected imams and jurists, as we shall demonstrate. We will show that this is the position that is best supported by the evidence and traditions (thr). It is backed up by [scholarly] reflection and contemplation, and is corroborated by the reality on the ground in the best times [i.e. the times of the best generations]. The anaf schools viewpoint: In the Ikhtiyr, a [relied upon] text from the anaf corpus, the author notes that, One is not permitted to look at an unrelated free woman, except at the face and the hands, if one does not fear [sexual] desire. Ab anfa added to this, the feet, as it is necessitated by the give and take [of social interaction], and so that a womans face can be recognized when she interacts with those not related to her, in order to take care of her everyday needs, as she [often] has no one who can take care of [those] needs. The basis for this position is the verse, (and let them not display their beauty (zna) except what [usually] appears of it. Most of the Companions of the Prophet state that this refers to kol, and rings, i.e. their places on the body. We have already noted that looking at kol, rings, jewelry, and other types of beauty (zna) are permitted (all) for both relatives and unrelated people, and by this is intended the place of that beauty [...]. As for the feet, it has been narrated that it is not part of the awra, as they appear when walking, and because [sexual] desire is greater in the face and hands [than in the feet], so it is permissible to look at them a fortiori. In [another] narration, the feet are considered part of the awra, in terms of looking at them, except when [a woman is] praying. The Mlik schools viewpoint: In the concise commentary (Shar al-aghr) of al-Dardr entitled, Awa al-Maslik il Madhhab Mlik, the [author notes that] the awra of a free woman in relation to an unrelated man [...] is her entire body, except the face and hands. As for these two, they are not a part of the awra. w adds in his marginal gloss,

Thus it is permissible to look at those two [parts of the body], and there is no difference whether one sees the palms or the backs [of the hands], as long as there is no seeking or feeling [sexual] pleasure in so doing. If there is, then it is impermissible [to look at either the hands or the face]. As to whether [a mans feeling sexual pleasure] obligates [a woman] to cover her hands and face, that is the position of Ibn Marzq who states that it is the best known opinion (mashhr) of the madhhab. [The contrary opinion that a woman] is not obliged to do so, but rather that the man must lower his gaze, is the corollary of what Mawwq narrates from [Q] Iyy. Zarrq notes in the Waghlsiyya in the case of an attractive woman, that she is obligated to cover her face, but for others it is merely recommended. The Shafi schools viewpoint: Shrz, the Shfi author of the Muhadhdhab states that, As for a free women, all her body is her awra, apart from her face and handsNawaw states, up to the wristsbecause of the verse, (and let them not display their beauty (zna) except what [usually] appears of it).Ibn Abbs states that [what is excepted] refers to her face and her hands, because the Prophet (pbuh) prohibited women in the state of irm from wearing a niqb and gloves. If the face and hands were part of the awra, it would not have been impermissible (arm) to cover them, and [in addition, everyday] needs require showing ones face in buying and selling, and showing ones hands in giving and taking, so they have not been made part of the awra. Nawaw adds in his Majm, a commentary on the Muhadhdhab, that some of the Shfis narrate a position of the Imm, or an opinion from one of the later jurists that states that the soles of the feet are not part of the awra, and Muzan states that [the feet] are not part of the awra, but the schools stance is the former. The anbal schools viewpoint: In the anbal school, we find Ibn Qudma stating in the Mughn that, There is no disagreement within the school that it is permissible for a woman to show her face in prayer, and that she should not show any more than her face and hands; and concerning the hands there are two narrations. The people of knowledge have differed [on these issues], but most of them agree that a woman may pray baring her face, and most of the people of knowledge agree that a free woman should cover her head when she prays, and that if she has prayed with all of her head uncovered, that she should repeat her prayers. Ab anfa states that the feet are not part of the awra, because they are exposed a lot of the time, and so they are like the face. Mlik, Awz, and Shafi state that all of a woman is [her] awra except her face and her hands. As for the rest [of her body], she must cover it when she prays, as Ibn Abbs states, concerning the verse, (and let them not display their beauty (zna) except what [usually] appears of it), [that it refers to] the

face and hands, because the Prophet (pbuh) prohibited women in a state of irm from wearing gloves and the niqb. If they were part of the awra, it would not have been impermissible (arm) to cover them, and [in addition, everyday] needs require showing ones face in buying and selling, and ones hands in giving and taking. Some of our scholars have stated that all of a womans [body] is her awra as it has been narrated in a adth from the Prophet (pbuh)narrated by Tirmidh that all of a womans [body] is her awra, and Tirmidh states that the adth is authentic (asan a) but she was given a dispensation that allowed her to expose her face and hands as covering them would cause great difficulty (mashaqqa); and looking at her face is permitted when asking for her hand in marriage, because it is the centre of beauty. This is the view of rith b. Hishm who states that, All of a womans body is her awra, even her nails. Other Schools: Imm Nawaw mentions in his Majm, in presenting the various scholarly opinions concerning the awra that the awra of a free woman is all of her body except her face and hands, and is the position of Shfi, Mlik, Ab anfa, Awz, Ab Thawr, and several others, and is one of the [positions] narrated from Amad. Ab anfa, Thawr, and Muzan also say that the feet are not part of the awra. Amad says [elsewhere, that her awra is] her entire body except her face. This is also the position of Dwd [al-hir] as stated in Nayl al-Awr. As for Ibn azm, he excludes both the face and the hands, as stated in the Muall, and we shall cite some of what he quotes to argue his position in the relevant sections [below]. This is also the position of a large number of the Companions and Successors (Tbin), as is clear from their interpretation of the meaning of(what [usually] appears of it) in Sra alNr. The Evidence of Those Who Permit Showing the Face and Hands We can now mention the most important legal proofs relied upon by those who say that wearing the niqb is not obligatory, and that one may show ones face and handsand they are the majority[...]. God willing there is sufficiency in this.

The Companions interpretation of (except what [usually] appears of it):

The majority of the scholars among the Companions, and the generations that followed them interpreted the verse in Sra al-Nr, (except what [usually] appears of it) to mean the face and hands, or kol, and rings, or other similar ornamentation. Suy cites in his Qurn commentary, al-Durr al-Manthr f-l-Tafsr bi-l-Mathr, a very large number of their statements to that effect. So, for instance, he states that,

Ibn al-Mundhir narrates from Anas [b. Mlik] that the verse, (and let them not display their beauty (zna) except what [usually] appears of it) refers to kol and rings. Sad b. Manr, Ibn Jarr, Abd b. umayd, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Bayaq narrate from Ibn Abbs that the verse, (and let them not display their beauty (zna) except what [usually] appears of it) refers to kol, rings, earrings, and necklaces. Abd alRazzq and Abd b. umayd narrate from Ibn Abbs that the verse, (except what [usually] appears of it) refers to henna on the hands and rings. Ibn Ab Shayba, Abd b. umayd, and Ibn Ab tim narrate from Ibn Abbs that the verse, (except what [usually] appears of it) refers to her face, hands, and rings. Ibn Ab Shayba, Abd b. umayd, and Ibn Ab tim [also] narrate from Ibn Abbs that the verse, (except what [usually] appears of it) refers to area of the face and the palms. Ibn Ab Shayba, Abd b. umayd, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Bayaq in his Sunan narrate from isha that she was asked about the (beauty) that ([usually] appears) and she replied, The bracelet and the rings (fatakh), and she held the end of her sleeve. Ibn Ab Shayba narrates from Ikrima, that the verse, (except what [usually] appears of it) refers to her face and the front of the neck. Ibn Jarr narrates from Sad b. Jubayr that the verse, (except what [usually] appears of it) refers to face and hands. Abd al-Razzq and Ibn Jarr narrate from Qatda that the verse, (and let them not display their beauty (zna) except what [usually] appears of it) refers to bracelets, rings, and kol. Qatda [also] says, it has come to my [knowledge] that the Prophet (pbuh) said, it is not permissible for a woman who believes in God and the Last Day [to show] other than up to here, and he held the middle of his forearm. Abd al-Razzq and Ibn Jarr also narrate from Miswar b. Makhrama that the verse, (except what [usually] appears of it) refers to bracelets, rings, and kol. Sad, Ibn Jarr and Ibn Jurayj narrate from Ibn Abbs that the verse, (and let them not display their beauty (zna) except what [usually] appears of it) refers to bracelets and rings. Ibn Jurayj also narrates from isha [that they refer to] bracelets and anklets. [Elsewhere,] she relates that, the daughter of my half-brother, Abd-Allh b. al-ufayl, visited me once when she was ornamented, and the Prophet (pbuh) entered, but turned away from her. [I said,] she is my niece, and a young girl, to which the Prophet replied, if a girl starts having her period, it is not permissible for her to show other than her face, and what is beyond this, and he held [the middle of] his arm. Ibn Masd differs here with Ibn Abbs, isha, and Anas y, saying that (what [usually] appears of it) is the clothes, and the outer garment (jilbb). My own view is that the interpretation of Ibn Abbs and those who agree with him is preferable, because the exception in the verse (except what [usually] appears of it) after the prohibition against displaying ones beauty indicates a kind of dispensation and easing,

while allowing the appearance of a cloak, outer garment (jilbb), or a similar piece of clothing does not represent any kind of dispensation, easing, or removal of hardship, as these things appear inevitably and unavoidably. This is why [Ibn Abbss opinion] is preferred by abar, Qurub, Rz, Bayw, and others, and it is the opinion of a majority of the scholars. Qurub prefers it because, since the face and hands appear in everyday activities and in worship, such as in prayer and in pilgrimage, it is suitable for the exception to refer to them [i.e. the face and hands].

One may also draw upon the adth narrated by Ab Dwd that Asm b. Ab Bakr entered upon [the house of] the Prophet (pbuh) wearing a thin dress, and the Prophet turned away from her saying, O Asm, when a woman reaches puberty, only these two should be visible, and he pointed at his hands and face. But the adth cannot stand alone as a proof, as it lacks a complete chain of narrators, and [also] has a weak narrator in the chain, as is well known. It finds support, however, in the adth of Asm b. Umays, which strengthens it, as well as in the customary practice of women, [both] at the time of the Prophet r, and among his Companions, which is why the adth scholar, Albn, considers it sound (asan) in his books, Jilbb al-Mara al-Muslima, Irw al-Ghall, a al-Jmi al-aghr, and Takhrj al-all wa-l-arm.

The command to place their headscarves (khimr) upon their chest (jayb) rather than over their faces.

God I says concerning the believing women, (Let them place their headscarves (khumur-i-hinn) upon their chests (juyb-i-hinn)). Khumur is the plural of khimr, which means headscarf; juyb is the plural of jayb, which means the part of the garment that exposes the cleavage area. Thus women have been commanded to drape their headscarves in such a way as to cover their necks and chests, and not to leave them uncovered in the way of the women of pre-Islamic times. If covering the face were an obligation, the verse would have stated so explicitly and commanded [them] to place their headscarves over their faces, in the same way that it explicitly mentions placing it over the cleavage area, and this is why Ibn azm states, after mentioning this holy verse, that, God I has thus commanded them to place their headscarves upon their chests, and this is a textual proof that the awra, the neck, and the chest ought to be covered, and it is also a textual proof that showing ones face is permitted, and nothing else is possible in any case.

The command for men to lower their gaze:

Men have been commanded to lower their gaze in the Qurn and the sunna. God says, (Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and preserve their private parts. That is more pure for them. Indeed God knows what you do). And the Prophet (pbuh) says [in a adth], Guarantee for me six things, and I shall guarantee for you Paradisebe truthful when you speak, fulfil your obligations when you are entrusted with anything, lower your gaze, [etc]. Elsewhere he (pbuh)tells Al, Do not follow up a glance with another glance, for you [are forgiven] the first, but not the second. He (pbuh) also says, O young people, whoever can marry should marry, for it will help you lower your gaze, and protect your private parts [...]. This has been narrated by all [of the six canonical collections of adth] on the authority of Ibn Masd. If womens faces were all covered, and all women wore the niqb, why should [men] be encouraged to lower their gaze? What could the eyes possibly see if faces were not exposed to allow for the possibility of attraction and temptation? And what does it mean that marrying helps lower ones gaze if the gaze cannot fall upon any part of a woman?

The verse (even if their beauty pleases you):

This is further supported by [the verse in which] God I informs the Prophet (pbuh) that, (No more women are permitted to you [in marriage], henceforth, nor may you change [current] wives for others, even if their beauty pleases you). How could he find their beauty pleasing if there were no possibility for him to see the face which, all agree, is the centre of beauty of a woman?

The adth, If one of you sees a woman and is struck by her [beauty]:

The sacred texts, and the numerous incidents indicate that most of the women in the time of the Prophet (pbuh) did not wear the niqb apart from rare instances. Rather they used to show their faces. Among [those incidents] is what has been narrated by Amad, Muslim, and Ab Dwd on the authority of Jbir, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) saw a woman, and was struck by her [beauty], so he went to his wife, Zaynabwho was tanning an animal skinand [slept] with her. He [later] said [to his Companions that,] a woman comes and goes in the form of a seductress,28 so if one of you sees a woman and is struck by her [beauty], let him go to his wife, for that will banish what troubles his soul.29 Drim narrates a similar adth on the authority of Ibn Masd, but in this case, the wife in question was Sawd, and his comment was that, any man who sees a woman and is struck by her beauty, let him go to his wife, for she has what [the other woman] has.

Amad relates the story on the authority of Ab Kabsha al-Anmr that the Prophet (pbuh) said, So-and-so went past me, and I felt the desire for women in my heart, so I went to one of my wives and slept with her, and you should do the same, for among your most exemplary actions is doing what is permissible. The reason for the adth[s] indicate that the noble Messenger saw a particular woman, and felt the desire for women in his heart due to his human nature and masculinity, and this could not have been possible except if he saw her face, which would allow to recognise her as so-and-so, and it was his seeing her that provoked his human desire, just as his statement, If one of you sees a woman and is struck by her [beauty...], indicates that this kind of incident could easily occur and was quite usual.

The adth, So he raised his glance towards her and focussed it:

Among the proofs for this view is what Bukhr and Muslim narrate on the authority of Sahl b. Sad that, A woman came to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and said, O Messenger of God, I have come to present myself to you [in marriage]. So the Mesenger of God (pbuh) raised his glance towards her and focussed it, and then lowered his head, so when she saw that he had not given a judgment on the matter, she sat down. If the woman had covered her face, the Prophet (pbuh) could not have raised his glance nor focussed it on her at length. It has not been narrated that she only did this for the marriage proposal, and later covered her face; rather it is narrated that she simply sat down, and one of the Companions in the gathering saw her, and asked the noble Messenger to marry her to him.

The adth of the [young] woman from Khatham and Fal b. Abbs:

Nas narrates on the authority of Ibn Abbs, that a woman from Khatham sought a fatw from the Messenger of God (pbuh) during the Farewell Pilgrimage, when Fal b. Abbs was riding with him. In the adth he mentions that, Fal looked towards the woman, who was remarkably beautiful, so the Messenger turned [Fals] face to the other side. Ibn azm says [about this incident that], If the face were part of the awra and required covering, he u would not have consented to her exposing it in the presence of people. [Rather,] he would have commanded her to drape something over it; and if her face were covered, Ibn Abbs would not have been able to know whether she was beautiful or ugly. So all that we have said is most certainly correct, and all praise is due to God in abundance!

Tirmidh narrates this story in [the form of] a adth narrated by Al, where he adds that the Prophet (pbuh) turned Fals [face away], and [Fals father], Abbs asked, O Messenger of God, why do you turn your nephews [face away from the woman]? He replied, I saw a young man and young woman, and I feared for their safety from the devil. Tirmidh states that the adth is authentic (asan a). The polymath, Shawkn, states that, Ibn al-Qan derives from this [adth] that it is permissible to look [at a womans face] if one does not fear [sexual] desire, since he did not tell her to cover her face; and had Abbs not considered looking to be permissible, he would not have asked [the question], and if what he thought were not permissible, the Prophet(pbuh)would not have consented to his thinking so. [He continues] in Nayl al-Awr, stating that, This adth can be used to prove that the aforementioned verse on the ijab [i.e. the verse, (And when you ask of [the Prophets wives] anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain (ijb))] applies only to the Prophets wives, because the story of Fal [took place] in the Farewell Pilgrimage [ten years after the hijra], while the verse of the ijb concerns the marriage of Zaynab [which took place] in the fifth year after the hijra.

Other adths:

Among the adths that may be used as evidence in this issue is the one in Muslim on the authority of Jbir b. Abd-Allh in which he says, I was with the Messenger of God (pbuh) on the day of Eid, and he began the prayer before the sermon. Then he kept walking until he reached the women and exhorted them saying, Give in charity, for indeed most of you are fuel for the Fire! Then one of the best women, with rosy cheeks, stood up and asked, why is that, O Messenger of God? He replied, because you complain much, and are ungrateful. So they began donating their jewellery, tossing into Bills cloth their earrings and rings. How could Jbir t have known that she had rosy cheeks if her face were covered with a niqb? Bukhr also narrates the story of the Eid prayer, but on the authority of Ibn Abbs, [saying] that he attended the Eid prayer with the Messenger of God (pbuh), and that he u delivered the sermon after the prayer, and then went with Bill to the women and exhorted them to give in charity. [Ibn Abbs added], I saw them lowering their hands

into Bills cloth, tossing into it [their jewellery]. Ibn azm notes that, Here we have Ibn Abbs in the presence of the Messenger of God (pbuh) seeing their hands, so it is true that a womans hand and her face are not part of her awra. Muslim and Ab Dwd also narrate this adth, and [here I use] Ab Dwds version, on the authority of Jbir, that the Prophet (pbuh) stood on the day of [Eid] al-Fir and prayed before delivering the sermon. Then he delivered the sermon, and when the Prophet of God (pbuh) finished, he descended [from the pulpit], came to the women and exhorted them while leaning on Bills arm. Bilal had spread his cloth, and the women were casting their charity into it. A woman would throw her fatakh into it, and [others] would cast one item after another. Ibn azm states that, Fatakh are large rings that they used to wear on their fingers, and if it were not for their hands being visible, they would not have been able to throw them. Among [such adths] are what has been narrated in the two authentic works on the authority of isha that the believing women used to attend the dawn prayer with the Prophet r, wrapped in woollen cloths, and then they would return to their houses after completing the prayer, unrecognisable because of the darkness. This indicates that they would have been recognisable if it were not for the darkness, and this would only have been possible if their faces were exposed. Another relevant adth is what Muslim narrates in his a that, Subaya b. al-rith was married to Sad b. Khawla, who was one of the men who had fought at Badr, and that she had been bereaved of him in the year of the Farewell Pilgrimage while she was pregnant. Shortly thereafter she gave birth, and when she recovered from childbirth, she adorned herself for potential suitors, but was visited by Ab al-Sanbil b. Bakak who told her, Why do I see that you are adorned? Is it because you wish to [re]marry? By God, you are not [permitted] to marry until four months and ten days have passed. Subaya said, when he told me that, I gathered my things in the evening, went to the Messenger of God r, and asked him about it, and he informed me that I was permitted to marry from the time that I had given birth, and told me that I should marry if I wished to. This adth shows us that Subaya appeared before Ab al-Sanbil while she was adorned, even though he was not a maram of hers. In fact he was one of the people who later proposed to her, and if her face were not exposed, he would not have known whether she was adorned or not. [In another adth,] narrated on the authority of Ammr b. Ysir y, A man passed by a woman, and having fixed his glance on her, walked

into a wall and injured his face causing it to bleed. So he came to the Messenger of God r, his face flowing with blood and said, O Messenger of God, I did such-and-such, and the Prophet (pbuh) replied, When God wishes good for a servant [of His], He hastens his punishment in this world, and if He does not wish so, He lets him persist in his sin so that he may be recompensed in full on the Day of Resurrection, as though he were a donkey. This indicates that the women would not cover their faces, and that there were among them those whose beauty would attract the glances of men to the extent that they would walk into walls, and bleed as a result!