The Shafi'i Stance on Women Covering Their Face
Compiled by Abul Layth for all English Speaking Shafi’is
Last Updated: Sept 17th 2008
This article is a compilation of all of the statements of the shafi’i jurists that I could find specifically on the issue of covering the face. I am sure there are more, and if I find more, I will add them to this collection. I have taken many of these quotes from the SeekingIlm research paper “Defending the Obligation of Niqab”. Many, however, are newly translated and are taken from my own personal research regarding this legal issue. I hope this collection of statements encourages all Shafi’is to implement the madh-hab’s official stance on the issue.
According to the Shafi’i Jurist Ibn Naqib Al-Masri there is agreement of the school that a woman is to cover her face in front of the ajnabi (unrelated non-mahram male). He states in his ‘Umdatus-Saalik,
وقد نقل الاتفاق على منع النساء من الخروج سافرات الوجوه ولا فرق بين الفتنة وعدمها
- Translation of Shaykh Nuh: “A majority of the scholars have been recorded as holding that it is unlawful for women to leave the house with faces unveiled, whether or not there is likelihood of temptation.”
“Al-Ittifaaq” means ‘agreement’. Another translation:”There is agreement of the scholars…”[pg 512 of the ‘Umdah]
Imam An-Nawawi in his Rawdatu-Taalibin quotes Imam Al-Haramayn Al-Juwayni as stating,
اتفاق المسلمين على منع النساء من الخروج سافرات
- “There is agreement of the Muslims that it is unlawful upon women to leave their homes while their faces are uncovered.”Quoted by Al-Khatib Ash-Shirbini in his Mughni Al-Muhtaaj ((3:128-129 )), quoted in Fat-hul-’Allam Sharh Murshid Al-Anaam, quoted in Tuhfat Al-Minhāj Bi-Sharh Al-Minhāj of Ibn Hajr Al-Haytamī, Vol. 7 page 193, published by Dār Al-Fikr, by Imām Taqiyud-dīn Abū Bakr ibn Muhammad Al-Husaynī Ad-Dimashqī Ash-Shāfi’ī in his Kifāyatul Akhyār Vol. 2 page 42, and elsewhere.
The Shafi’i, Ibn Rislaan, also stated,
- “The Muslims are in agreement that it is prohibited for women to come out of their homes while their faces are uncovered.” (Quoted by Imam Ash-Shawkani in his Nayl Al Awtār 6/114]
Imām An-Nawawi said while talking about Salah, “The ‘Awrah of a free woman is everything but her hands and face…”
Shaykh Sulaymān Al Jamal in his Haashiyah explaining what is meant says,
وهذه عورتها في الصلاة . وأما عورتها عند النساء المسلمات مطلقًا وعند الرجال المحارم ، فما بين السرة والركبة . وأما عند الرجال الأجانب فجميع البدن
- “And this is her ‘awrah in Salah. And her ‘awrah amongst the muslim women and the Mahārim men (fathers etc) is what is between her navel and knees. As for her ['awrah] in front of Ajānib (foreign) men it is all of her body.” ((Haashiyatul Jamal ‘Alal Sharh Al-Minhaaj 1/411 ))
And Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdillah Al Jordāni said,
- “And know that Al-Awrah is of two types,1) ‘Awrah in the Salah 2) ‘Awrah when she leaves it. And All of her is a must for her to cover.’
He continues after discussing the issue of when an unrelated man is looking at her and he states,
ويجب عليها أن تستتر عنه ، هذا هو المعتمد
- ”And it is obligatory upon her to cover from him, and this is the Mu’tamid (the established position in the school).” [Fat-thul ‘Allām bi Sharh Murshid Al Anām 1:34-35]
The Great Shafi’i Jurist Ash Sheikh Taqiyud Din Al Hisni said,
- “And it is makrūh (hated) that one makes Salāh in a garment with pictures on it, and that a woman wear niqāb, unless she is in the masjid and in it are men who are ajānib, and they are not caring about looking, so if she fears that they are looking at her, it is harām for her to lift the niqāb, and this happens in a lot of places such as the going to Bayt Al Maqdis…” [Kifāyatul Akhyār 1/181]
Ash-Shaykh Muhammad ibn Al Qāsim Al Ghazzi Ash-Shafi’i said,
- “And the entirety of the free woman is ‘awrah except her face and hands, and this is her ‘awrah in Salāh. As for her ‘awrah when she leaves Salah, then her ‘awrah is all of her body.” [Fat-hul Qarīb bi Sharh Al-Faath At Taqrīb page 19]
Ash-Shaykh Muhammad Az-Zuhri Al-Ghumraawi Ash-Shaafi’i stated,
- “It is forbidden for man to look at anything of the ajnabiyyah (unrelated, marriageable woman) including her face, hair, fingernails, whether she be free or a slave.”
He says further down,
- “So as for the free Ajnabiyyah it is forbidden to look at any part of her even if there is no shahwah (desire). The same ruling is for touching and sitting alone with them. According to the established opinion (mu’tamad) the slave is just like her. There is no difference in whether she is beautiful or not.”
He states on the next page, “And it is Haraam upon her to unveil anything of her body, including her face and hands, in front of a pubescent boy or a female disbeliever.” ((Anwaar Al Masaalik Sharh Umdat As-Saalik page 217 ))
Shaykh Zakariya Al-Ansaari (rahimahullah) stated, when discussing Salah, “And the ‘Awrah of a free woman is everything save the face and the hands.” Shaykh Ash-Sharqaawi states in his explanation of this,
وعورة الحرة .. أي : في الصلاة . أما عورتها خارجها بالنسبة لنظر الأجنبي إليها فجميع بدنها حتى الوجه والكفين ولو عند أَمنِ الفتنة
- ”And this is her ‘awrah in Salah. As for her ‘awrah outside of it, when the Ajnabi (unrelated marriageable man) can look at her, then all of her body including the face and the hands, even if there is security from fitnah.” ((Tuhfat At-Tullaab Sharh Tahreer Tanqih Al-Lubaab page 174 ))
Imām Ash-Shirwāni said,
قال الزيادي في شرح المحرر : إن لها ثلاث عورات :
ــ عورة في الصلاة ، وهو ما تقدم ــ أي كل بدنها ما سوى الوجه والكفين ــ .
ــ وعورة بالنسبة لنظر الأجانب إليها : جميع بدنها حتى الوجه والكفين على المعتمد .
ــ وعورة في الخلوة وعند المحارم : كعورة الرجل
“[Imām] Ziyādi in Sharh Al-Muharar said: For a woman there is three [types of] ‘Awrahs,
1) ‘Awratu-fis-Salāh (the ‘awrah of prayer) – and that was mentioned before – It is everything of the body except the face and the hands.
2) The ‘Awrah with regards to an un-related man looking at her: It is the entire body including the hands and the face, according to (the opinion that is) relied upon.
3) The ‘awrah in privacy and amongst her Mahrams (those people related to her and un-marriable): It is like the ‘Awrah of men. [i.e. from her navel to her knees]. ((Haashiyat Ash-Shirwaani Alaa Tuhfat Al-Muhtaaj ))
Imām Taqiyud-Dīn As-Subkī said,
“And what is the closest (in opinion), from what our companions have produced is that the face and the hands of a woman are ‘awrah in nathr (i.e. looking) and not in the Salāh.” ((Quoted by Imām Al-Khatīb Ash-Shirbinī in his Al-Mughnī Al-Muhtāj. ))
Al-Hāfidh Ibn Hajr Al ‘Asqalāni said in his Fat-hul Bāri said,
لم تزل عادة النساء قديمًا وحديثاً يسترن وجوههن عن الأجانب
- “And it has not ceased to be a custom for women, from the older generations and the newer ones, to cover their faces from non-related men.” ((Fat-hul Bāri 9/235 ))
هذه آية الحجاب في حق سائر النساء، ففيها وجوب ستر الرأس والوجه عليهن
“This is the verse of Hijab regarding all women. In it is the wujub (obligation) upon them of covering the head and the face.” (3/118)
He also stated in Al-Ashbaah wan-Nathaa’ir,
وعورتها كل البدن حتى الوجه والكفين في الأصح
“And her ‘awrah is all of her body including her face and hands according to the most correct view (Al-‘Asahh).” (pg. 410)
Imam Ar-Ramli stated in his Nihayatul-Muhtaj,
وعلى المرأة ستر وجهها وكفيها من رؤوس الأصابع إلى المعصم ظهرا وبطنا
“And upon the woman is that she cover her face and hands from the tips of the fingers to the wrists, the top and bottom.” (6/187)
Shihab stated in his commentary,
ومذهب الشافعي رحمه الله كما في الروضة وغيرها أن جميع بدن المرأة عورة حتى الوجه والكف مطلقا
“And the school of Ash-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy upon him, is as stated in Ar-Rawdah and other than it, that all of the woman is ‘awrah including the face and the hands.”
33 Responses to “The Shafi'i Stance on Women Covering Their Face”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- The Shafi’i Stance on the Face Veil « Seekers’ Garden - [...] The Shafi’i Stance on Women Covering Their Face [...]
- Shafi’i Salah Fiqh Series: Lesson 1, The First Pre-Condition of Salah, Covering the ‘Awrah: Seeking Ilm (Knowledge) - [...] To read more on the ‘awrah of a woman in the Shāfi’ī school please see the following article: http://seekingilm.com/archives/167 ...
Ibn Hajr’s statement!
Where are the Quran verses, for just like Christianity I will not believe a man who is not one of the prophets. For their assumptions and interpretations are bias.
Chiley, we have collected the proofs from the Qur’an and the Sunnah here:
http://seekingilm.com/seekingilms-research/niqab
This article was simply a collection of statements from some of the Shafi’i jurists, that is all.
Assalamu alaykum WR WB,
Firstly, jazakALLAH for your time and effort involved. AlhamduliLLAH it is clear to see that the mu’tammad in our school is that it is wajib.
Just a quick one though, even in Minhaj at-Talibin (Nawawi – RAH) every masala is classified and even “fil-aswah ” is deemed as the the strongest opinion, all-the-while the descenting view is weak but has its valid evidences and supporters.
In this case have you found any of the Shafi’ akabir who held onto this wek view? with or without their evidneces, just who they were and what book this opinion was recorded in?
I only ask because even Shaykh Nuh (DB) in speaking on this issue said that the niqab is non-negotiable in his company (whilst travelling) and in Jordan and Syria. HOWEVER, himself and also even according to his shaykh (i think its that same one he used to learn Hayatus Sahaba with) that hijab is minimum universally (and niqab in those specs abovementioned). I just wanted to know why Sh. Nuh leant on this position for his salikiin and where its from… from a fiqha stance.
Believe me, this is with good intent InshALLAH i ask for the weaker opinions in defence of Shaykh Nuh’s (DB) audio on hijab being the minimum universally (instead of niqab being the minimum).
JazakALLAH wasalam
Salamu ‘alaykum Sidi As-Siini,
I think it is best that your forward your question to Shaykh Nuh. I believe that he utilizes the rukhsa found within the Hanafi madh-hab for his verdict, not that of the Shafi’i view.
However, I could be mistaken, and you should feel free to ask either him or someone close to him. We are not his spokesmen or affiliated with the noble shaykh in any way.
If you are asking if there were any Kibaar of the Shafi’i school who held that the face was not ‘awrah fi nathr, then I do not know of any of the kibaar that held such a view, though I do not deny the possibility of such.
As salamu alaykum,
The position of Imam Nawawi is that the face is Awrah.However the position that Ibn Hajr al Haytami reports is that Many early Shafis did not included the face and hands as part of the Awrah, this is the position we were taught to apply to teh sisters while living in the UK by our teachers.
Sidi, if you could bring us the quote and references for that opinion please do.
As salamu alaykum, I received this during class as an alternative opinion for the sisters in the west. I’ll ask for a reference from Ibn Hajr’s(Haytami) works.Shaykh Afifi’s classes won’t start again for another month so you might have to wait.
Sorry
Jazakullah Khair
im shafi-south India, and the shafi scholars here have been increasingly insisting on covering the face and there is an increase in covering the face among the women here.alhamdulilah
my doubt is when looking at the traditional dress code i dont find the niqaab among them.
even malayasia, indoneisa etc is shafi. to my knowledge, the traditional dress code over there dont include the niqaab???
any particluar reason for that??
i found this on suuni path.
FIRST QUESTION
I have noticed from reading the Reliance of the Traveler and other Shafi’i fiqh references that the relied upon position of the Shafi’i madhab with regard to niqab is obligation. It seems to be required for women to cover their hands and face. For the most part, this isn’t practised in Malaysia and I was wondering if there were acceptable alternative opinions within the madhab that allow the more lenient position (of exposing the hands and the face) to be followed (which to my knowledge is the relied upon position of the Malikis).
The Shafi`i Madhhab has differentiated, with regard to face-veil (niqab) and covering the hands in public, between it being a qualified order (amr) connected with self-respect (muru’a) rather than an obligation in itself (wajib), however, the conclusive position seems indeed to be the latter as you said. Al-Shirbini said in Mughni al-Muhtaj: “The obvious meaning of the words of the Two Shaykhs [Nawawi and Rafi`i] is that covering (satr) is obligatory in itself (wajib li-dhatih).”
Yet the Madhhab *allows* exposing the hands and face if there is no fear of enticement (fitna), especially in trading, witnessing, engagement and marriage, and other transactions, as they are NOT part of nakedness (`awra), and *commands* it in Hajj, although some have deduced that in the context of prohibited gazes they ARE, as related from al-Subki by al-Shirbini and favored by Dr. Sa`id al-Buti in his book Ila Kulli Fatatin Tu’minu bilLah (“To Every Young Woman That Believes in Allah”).
A Permissive Ruling?
——————–
Some cite al-Haytami’s assertion in al-Fatawa al-Kubra (1:199): “The sum of our [Shafi`i] Madhhab is that Imam al-Haramayn [Ibn al-Juwayni] related consensus (ijma`) over the permissibility for women to go out bare-faced but men must lower their gazes.”
In Hashiyat Sharh al-Idah fi Manasik al-Hajj (p. 276) al-Haytami repeats this ruling but adds: “This is not contradicted by the consensus over her being commanded to cover her face. The fact that she is commanded to do so for the general welfare does not presuppose its obligatoriness.” And (p. 178): “Her need to cover her face stems only from her fear that someone’s gaze might lead to a sexual impropriety (fitna), even if we say that it is not obligatory (wajib) for her to cover her face in the public thoroughfares as we have determined elsewhere.”
This is similar to Qadi `Iyad al-Maliki’s assertion of “Consensus (Ijma`) that it is not obligatory for her to cover her face while walking down her street but it is a sunna, and that it is obligatory for men to lower their gaze.” The Shafi`is cite this ruling and the Yemeni Shaykh Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn `Abd Al-Rahman ibn Hasan ibn `Abd al-Bari al-Ahdal (1277-1352) even recommends it in his book `Umdat al-Mufti wal-Mustafti (3:90-91), an abridgment of a collection of books of fatawa which is of great significance given the lateness of the author. He apparently ignored al-Shirbini’s comment in the Mughni: “The statement of the Qadi [`Iyad] is weak.”
The Likelier Ruling
——————-
At the same time, al-Nawawi in al-Rawda and al-Shirbini in al-Iqna` and Mughni al-Muhtaj both report that Imam al-Haramayn clearly stipulated that the stranger’s gaze to a woman’s face is forbidden (haram) whether or not there is fear of fitna [short of a valid excuse in the Law such as one of the transactions mentioned] and that “women are therefore forbidden to leave the house barefaced (saafiraat), by agreement of the [law-abiding and knowledgeable] Muslims… since it is more appropriate and decorous in the Law to block the avenue of enticement.”
The latter ruling takes precedence in the Shafi`i School just as al-Nawawi (especially al-Rawda) takes precedence over al-Haytami. Furthermore, al-Haytami’s Fatawa and Sharh al-Idah come last even in the hierarchy of his own books[;] one would have to adduce his Tuhfat al-Muhtaj which is more authoritative, but not more so than the Rawda.
It remains to double-check Imam al-Haramayn’s actual statement about consensus; however, none of his works is actually authoritative in the Madhhab by itself.
Malay Practice
————–
The continuous habitual exposure we see in SE Asia suggests either one of two scenarios: [1] laxity that stems from custom and culture without grounding or justification in the Madhhab. The proof of this is that SE Asian Islam was originally brought by the Hadramis, who are not nearly so liberal, al-Ahdal being unrepresentative. There are also Tariqa and other groups in Malaysia that use niqab and have become notorious for doing so, since they are perceived as a protest or a rebellion, which confirms that its neglect in those parts stems from culture rather than religion.
Or [2] South-East Asian Muslimas do not feel the need to cover their faces because they do not fear that someone’s gaze might lead to sexual impropriety, and this was known by the Hadrami Masters, therefore they did not insist on it, especially in light of the apparent permissiveness of the view from Imam al-Haytami’s perspective and because the Hadramis are known to rely heavily on the latter (rather than on al-Nawawi and al-Rafi`i as do all other Shafi`is.)
One could surmise the situation is closer to the first scenario as illustrated by the following conversation in Brunei between a local Fiqh teacher and a traveller:
Traveller: Is it not the custom for Muslim males in Brunei to dye their hands with henna in their nikah celebration?
Fiqh Teacher: Yes.
Traveller: But is it not expressly forbidden in the Shafi`i Madhhab – the state Madhhab and that of the entire Malay population – as a haram practice for men unless in case of medical necessity?
Fiqh Teacher: Yes.
Traveller: Does anything explain this contradiction between the people’s custom and the Fiqh they say they follow?
Fiqh Teacher: No.
However, in the West (and perhaps even the South East) it is evident that the niqab would cause fitna rather than pre-empt it. Therefore, as Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali said, it should not be used there (whether by Shafi`iyyas or Muslimas of the other three Schools). The hijab is enough. However, when the hijab can be worn without danger to one’s person or honor or property, then it is corruption (fisq) or dissimulation of unbelief (nifaq) to go on not wearing it, or to wear a false version of it such as a head-scarf that leaves the throat and neck bare with a cute tuft of hair visible here and there. It should be sufficient warning to such a person that the Salat she prays in that garb is invalid and Allah knows best.
http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00003149.aspx
——————————————————————————–
This is a very strange statement indeed, considering that the Imam of the Madh-hab, Imam An-Nawawi, quotes him saying:
اتفاق المسلمين على منع النساء من الخروج سافرات
“There is agreement of the Muslims that it is unlawful upon women to leave their homes while their faces are uncovered.” [Rawdat-Talibin]
Not to mention Al-Haytami himself quotes this view in his Tuhfah! The scholars have relied heavily upon this statement, as can be seen in their works (ex: Shirbini, Al-Hisni in Kifayah, etc).
“However, in the West (and perhaps even the South East) it is evident that the niqab would cause fitna rather than pre-empt it.”
That’s an oddity!!!
Throughout the whole explanation (and any other kitab on the subject of covering, women’s travelling, who is and isn’t a mahram and women’s issues in general, where the word “Fitna” is used) the word “fitnah” has always been associated with “sexual impropriety” (in their own words). We are not denying the permissible usage of the word in other contexts, but never in the discussion of women’s issues especially related to covering to prevent fitnah, is it associated with anything other than sexual impropriety.
So how is it “evident” that wearing a niqab for a lady to not bare any of her beauty would create more of an opportunity of sexual impropriety than a lady who bears the inviting beauty of her face?
PLEASE EXPLAIN?!?!?
Wasalam with love
Abi Hakeem Abdur Rahiim as-Siini
ps – for anyone trying to get to the new link to the Sunnipath answers compilation
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=10&ID=2892&CATE=128
secondly,
“…It remains to double-check Imam al-Haramayn’s actual statement about consensus…”
Which statement? the one just under “Permissive ruling” -
“Some cite al-Haytami’s assertion in al-Fatawa al-Kubra (1:199): “The sum of our [Shafi`i] Madhhab is that Imam al-Haramayn [Ibn al-Juwayni] related consensus (ijma`) over the permissibility for women to go out bare-faced but men must lower their gazes.””
Or the one in the end of the 1st paragraph of “The likelier ruling” -
“…women are therefore forbidden to leave the house barefaced (saafiraat), by agreement of the [law-abiding and knowledgeable] Muslims…”
In the end alhamduliLLAH, the rukhsa is there and its the very first quote in Haddad’s response – al-Fatawa al-Kubra (1:199).
Wasalam
SubhanAllah! I just realized that was stated! If they mean the quote from Imam Al-Juwayni regarding the agreement of the Muslims that it is forbidden for them come out with their face unveiled, then they simply can not be serious!?!????
Sorry Abul Layth
Although we know what the mu’tammad is, we have to be fair in light of ‘research’ but “they” are just quoting.
Unfortunately, i dont have fatawa al-kubra, neither is my arabic anywhere near being able to understand it even if i did have it.
So that leaves you mate, to look to see whether there’s something ommitted in both those quotes from al-haytami (i.e. al-Fatawa al-Kubra (1:199) and Hashiyat Sharh al-Idah fi Manasik al-Hajj (p. 276)) If its found in there verbatim as per above, then neither is there threat of fatawa al-kubra not being his compilation, nor is there threat of his being unreliable in quoting imam al-haramayn, nor is he unreliable in his statements in our school, period. So we’d be forced to accept that there is a valid position within the school.
I remember learning that al-haytami is the mu’tammad of our school. I can’t remember on what issue, but there was one (so far from what we’re being taught) where his view is taken over an-Nawawi. Maybe you remember which?…
Wasalam.
Lastly (for today inshALLAH),
i found this guy
http://talkaboutislam.com/forums/index.php/topic,4481.10.html
About half way down the page, “Advisor – Global administrator” quotes Zakariyya al-ansari.
Coz that now leaves it open from al-haytami and al-ansari (both we regard as shaykh al-islam).
One of the resident muftis of SF:
“Sh. Ali Juma mentioned that when Ramli and Ibn Hajr haven’t discussed an issue, then one refers to the books of Zakariya al-Ansari. If it isn’t found in there, then to the books of Khatib as-Shirbini viz. his Mughni ,as well as al-Iqna.”
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36302
I assume he’s speaking of the grand mufti of Egypt Shaykh Ali Jumu’ah?
Wasalam
Brother, the problem is regarding Al-Juwayni and seemingly casting aspersions on his declaring agreement of the Muslims on this issue. When Imam An-Nawawi and others quote him, it is over.
I have come upon some more quotes from the Shafi’is that I will be adding to the end of the article:
Ar-Ramli and An-Nawawi both discuss the issue and their verdicts are the mu’tamad of the school.
I agree entirely that it is the relied upon position. My original question was regarding any other recognised view within the school.
“Fil asaH”, the most sound opinion, is that opening for the difference of opinion. Where in Minhaj at-talibin (in the khutbatul kitab):
wa haythu aqulu: (al asah awi sahih) famin alwajhayni awil aujuh, fa in qawy al khilaf qultu: (al asah), wa illa asahih.
Both show that there is difference of opinion when using either categories (i.e. asah au sahih), only difference that one is strong valid evidence backing the other opinion (Qawy al khilaf, my teacher said this difference of opinion here is not like today i say this and i say that, but he’s talking about valid evidence-backed difference of opinion is implied – not stuff that just gets disregarded – the difference of opinion is strong would summarize the statement with the abovementioned undertone), and one isn’t (strongly backed).
So really, even using Imam Nawawi we see, that there is/was a difference of opinion recognised (even though the mu’tammad is as per his qawl asah).
I assume this is what Shaykh Nuh (DB) is leaning on in his nasiha as well as his shaykh – shaykh shaghouri.
Wasalam
And if you say Ramli is the mu’tammad then so too is al-Haytami by virtue of excellence in scholarship and acceptance by the majority of the school.
Whereas Nawawi is at the phase of Rafi.
In fact, the majority of shafi’ followers are probably in SE asia, in which case they have adopted the tuhfa as the mu’tammad.
Wasalam
In response we quote Imam Al-Bulqini:
“The Mu’tamad (the established view) of the Madh-hab in both Hukm (court rulings) and Fatwaa (legal verdicts) is whatever is agreed upon (ittafaq ‘alayh) by the two Shaykhs (i.e. Nawawi & Raafi’i). Then precedence is for Nawawi and then Imam Ar-Rafi’i. Then what has been declared the correct opinion (rajahah) by the majority. Next then is the [scholar with] more knowledge and then the scholar with more wara’ (piety). Our Shaykh [i.e. Ibn Hajr Al-Haytami (born 909 AH)] said that this is what the researching later scholars held firmly to, and it is the canonical view (‘itimaaduh) of our Shaykhs.”
[Quoted in “Reliance of the Traveller” page 870-871 referencing from Kitaab Fat-hul Mu’een bi Sharh Qurra Al-’Ayn bi Muhimmat ad-deen.]
So, Al-Haytami established and followed the structure as well.
Secondly,
It seems based upon the statements of the earlier scholars, as well as everyone else except Al-Haytami, that Imam Al-Haramayn did not hold the view reported by Al-Haytami Rahimahullah.
The following is the statement and entire section on covering the face and lowering the gaze in Mughni Al-Muhtaj of Ash-Shirbini:
http://www.seekingilm.com/shirbini/
I have underlined the quote from Imam Al-Juwayni. Furthermore, as we quoted within the original post the opposite of Ibn Hajr’s claim has also been recorded by:
“Imam An-Nawawi in his Rawdat-At-Talibin, in Fat-hul-’Allam Sharh Murshid Al-Anaam, also by Imām Taqiyud-dīn Abū Bakr ibn Muhammad Al-Husaynī Ad-Dimashqī Ash-Shāfi’ī in his Kifāyatul Akhyār Vol. 2 page 42, and elsewhere.”
None of these a’immah quoted Al-Juwayni with the words ascribed to him by Al-Haytami in his Fatawa – which is not written with his own hand but actually recorded Q & A from his students.
To begin with, i appreciate this as a discourse between seekers of diin – so i thank you wa jazakALLAH. In fact, you guys are certainly my seniors, and i am barely a student but one benefitting from your inputs walhamduliLLAH.
Secondly, I am glad and happy to see that it has been penned that the bee’s knees of our school is an-Nawawi (RAH). Something i hold onto personally anyway (not that my views weigh into the matter by even an atom’s weight). I am merely trying to understand whether it is an equally available option to practice on the sayings of Al-Haytami without having to search into an-Nawawi’s aqwal. It seems from your last quote that Haytami suffices without the approval of Ramli so that discards the quote of “Admin” above in quoting Ramli in the same kettle of fish as Nawawi (Or at least, if there is a disagreement between Haytami and everyone else other than shaykhayn, Haytami is relied upon according to your source). In fact i assume you selected Imam Al-Bulqini as he is also one to be admired. He takes this position to establish who is and isn’t our authority in the school (again from his understanding of who is to be admired) through the statement of 1 single Haytami (RAH).
Therefore, is it not fair to conclude that before discarding al-Haytami’s references altogether, one MUST look into where he sourced them from. Then one can analyse the strength of that sanad before haytami but not as of Haytami.
In the end, even if it results in some evidence coming to light upon the weakness of the sanad of this qawl from imam al-haramayn, the possibility is still there (although weak) and is relied upon by al-haytami and we can conlcude is valid, though weak.
Wasalam
Salamu alaykum,
Jazakallaah khayr for the article, i am confused, according to shafi’i madhab if i do not cover my face and hands, does this mean i am sinning?
Wa’alaykum Salam wr wb,
The established opinion of the Shafi’i school (as well as the Hanbali, and a view of the Malikis) is that the face is ‘awrah in front of non-mahram men – though not in salah unless non-mahram men are looking upon her.
It is the view of the Hanafi madh-hab that a woman’s face is not essentially ‘awrah, however, it is to be covered in front of non-related men (the modern view), and in times of fitnah it is necessary for her to cover her face.
was-Salam
jazakallah khayr, I’m shafi’i and so if I do not cover my face, then am I sinning according to the shafi scholars?
Yes, as the fard/wajib is a command from Allah or His Messenger, that if not done, results in sayyi’at.
Abdur-Rahiim As-Siini,
قال الإمام النووي في الروضة ج7/21:نظر الرجل إلى المرأة فيحرم نظره إلى عورتها مطلقا و إلى وجهها و كفيها إن خاف الفتنة و إن لم يخف فوجهان
قال أكثر الأصحاب لا سيما المتقدمون لا يحرم لقول الله(و لا يبدين زينتهن إلا ما ظهر منها)و هو مفسر بالوجه و الكفين لكن يكره قاله الشيخ أبو حامد و غيره
والثاني :يحرم قاله الإصطخري و أبو علي الطبري و اختاره الشيخ أبو محمد و الإمام و به قطع صاحب المهذب و الروياني
و وجهه الإمام بإتفاق المسلمين على منع النساء من الخروج سافرات و بأن النظر مظنة الفتنة و هو محرك الشهوة فاللائق بمحاسن الشرع سد الباب فيه و الإعراض عن تفاصيل الأحوال كالخلوة بالأجنبية أ.ه
و التحريم هو الذي صححه النووي في المنهاج حيث قال:و يحرم نظر فحل بالغ إلى عورة حرة كبيرة أجنبية و كذا وجهها و كفيها عند خوف الفتنة و كذا عند الأمن على الصحيح أ.ه
و قال الخطيب الشربيني في المغني ج3/167:و ظاهر كلام الشيخين أن الستر-أي ستر الوجه و الكفين- واجب لذاته
قلت:و عند أصحابنا إذا قالوا الشيخان يريدون بهما الرافعي و النووي كما هو معروف في مصطلحات المذهب
فإذا علمت أخي طالب العلم أن الذي أطبق عليه المحققون في المذهب أن المعتمد في المذهب ما اتفقا عليه الشيخان-يعني الرافعي و النووي-فإن إختلفا و لم يوجد لهما مرجح أو وجد لكن على السواء فالمعتمد ما قاله النووي علمت أن مذهب الشافعية الراجح فيه هو وجوب النقاب لا إستحبابه
و هذا هو الذي فهمه المتأخرون الذين تدور عليهم الفتيا في المذهب كالسبكي و الرملي و الهيتمي و الأنصاري و الشربيني
قال السبكي كما هو في مغني المحتاج :إن الأقرب إلى صنع الأصحاب أن وجهها و كفيها عورة في النظر لا في الصلاة و إطلاقه الكبيرة يشمل العجوز التي لا تشتهى و هو الأرجح في الشرح الصغير و هو المعتمد لأن لكل ساقطة لاقطة
و قال الشيخ زكريا الأنصاري في فتح الوهاب ج2/55:و ما ذكرته من تحريم نظر الفحل إلى وجه المرأة و كفيها و عكسه عند أمن الفتنة هو ما صححه صاحب الأصل و الذي في الروضة كأصلها عند أكثر الأصحاب حله أ.ه
و قال الخطيب الشربيني في الإقناع في حل ألفاظ أبي شجاع ج1/124:و يكره أن يصلي الرجل متلثما و المرأة منتقبة إلا أن تكون في مكان و هناك أجانب لا يحترزون عن النظر إليها فلا يجوز لها رفع النقاب أ.ه
و ثم مسألة أخرى لم يتعرض لها-في المذهب من المتقدمين- إلا الخطيب وهي-المغني/ج3/167- هل يحرم النظر إلى المنتقبة التي لا يتبين منها غير عينيها و محاجرها أو لا؟
قال الأذرعي لم أر فيه نصا و الظاهر أنه لا فرق لاسيما إذا كانت جميلة فكم من المحاجر من خناجر أ.ه
و قال الشيخ زكريا الأنصاري في أَسْنَى المطالب
( قَوْلُهُ نَظَرُ الْوَجْهِ وَالْكَفَّيْنِ إلَخْ ) قَالَ الْمَاوَرْدِيُّ عَوْرَتُهَا مَعَ غَيْرِ الزَّوْجِ كُبْرَى وَصُغْرَى فَالْكُبْرَى مَا عَدَا الْوَجْهِ وَالْكَفَّيْنِ وَالصُّغْرَى مَا بَيْنَ السُّرَّةِ وَالرُّكْبَةِ فَيَجِبُ سَتْرُ الْكُبْرَى فِي الصَّلَاةِ وَكَذَا عَنْ الرِّجَالِ الْأَجَانِبِ وَالْخَنَاثَى وَالصُّغْرَى عَنْ النِّسَاءِ وَإِنْ قَرُبْنَ وَكَذَا عَنْ رِجَالِ الْمَحَارِمِ وَالصِّبْيَانِ وَهَلْ عَوْرَتُهَا مَعَ الشَّيْخِ الْهَرِمِ وَالْمَجْبُوبِ الصُّغْرَى أَوْ الْكُبْرَى وَجْهَانِ قَالَ شَيْخُنَا أَصَحُّهُمَا ثَانِيهِمَا مَعَ زِيَادَةِ الْوَجْهِ وَالْكَفَّيْنِ عَلَى مَا فِي الْمِنْهَاجِ ( قَوْلُهُ مِنْ الْمَرْأَةِ إلَى الرَّجُلِ إلَخْ ) الْمُرَاهِقَةُ كَالْمُرَاهِقِ فِي حُكْمِهِ الْآتِي ( قَوْلُهُ وَاَلَّذِي صَحَّحَهُ فِي الْمِنْهَاجِ كَأَصْلِهِ التَّحْرِيمُ ) أَشَارَ إلَى تَصْحِيحِهِ ( قَوْلُهُ وَوَجَّهَهُ الْإِمَامُ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ إلَخْ ) نُقِلَ فِي الرَّوْضَةِ وَأَصْلِهَا هَذَا الِاتِّفَاقَ وَأَقْرَأَهُ وَعَلَّلَ بِهِ فِي الشَّرْحِ الصَّغِيرِ وَهُوَ الْمُعْتَمَدُ وَكَلَامُ الْقَاضِي عِيَاضٍ مَرْدُودٌ بِأَشْيَاءَ مِنْهَا قَوْلُ الْأَصْحَابِ مَعْنَى كَوْنِ الْمُرَاهِقِ كَالْبَالِغِ أَنَّهُ يَلْزَمُ الْمَنْظُورَ إلَيْهَا الِاحْتِجَابُ مِنْهُ كَمَا يَلْزَمُهَا الِاحْتِجَابُ مِنْ الْمَجْنُونِ قَطْعًا وَقَوْلُهُمْ يَحْرُمُ عَلَى الْمُسْلِمَةِ كَشْفُ مَا لَا يَبْدُو مِنْهَا عِنْدَ الْمِهْنَةِ لِلْكَافِرَةِ وَفَتْوَى النَّوَوِيِّ بِأَنَّهُ يَحْرُمُ عَلَى الْمُسْلِمَةِ كَشْفُ وَجْهِهَا لَهَا عَلَى أَنَّ بَعْضَهُمْ نَقَلَ أَنَّ الْقَاضِيَ إنَّمَا نَقَلَهُ عَنْ أَكْثَرِ الْعُلَمَاءِ وَعَلَيْهِ فَلَا مُخَالَفَةَ ( قَوْلُهُ قَالَ الْبُلْقِينِيُّ التَّرْجِيحُ بِقُوَّةِ الْمُدْرِكِ إلَخْ ) قَالَ شَيْخُنَا مُرَادُهُ بِذَلِكَ أَنَّ الْمُدْرِكَ مَعَ مَا فِي الْمِنْهَاجِ كَمَا أَنَّ الْفَتْوَى عَلَيْهِ ( قَوْلُهُ وَالْفَتْوَى عَلَى مَا فِي الْمِنْهَاجِ ) قَالَ فِي التَّوَسُّطِ بَلْ الظَّاهِرُ أَنَّهُ اخْتِيَارُ الْجُمْهُورِ ا هـ وَجَزَمَ بِهِ فِي التَّدْرِيبِ وَقُوَّةُ كَلَامِ الصَّغِيرِ تَقْتَضِي رَجْحَتَهُ , وَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبْدِ السَّلَامِ لَوْ كَانَ لِرَجُلٍ امْرَأَةٌ تَنْظُرُ مِنْ طَاقٍ فِي غُرْفَةٍ أَوْ غَيْرِهَا إلَى الْأَجَانِبِ أَوْ يَنْظُرُونَ إلَيْهَا مِنْهَا وَجَبَ عَلَيْهِ بِنَاءُ الطَّاقِ أَوْ سَدُّهَا قَالَ الْأَذْرَعِيُّ هَلْ يَحْرُمُ النَّظَرُ إلَى الْمُنَقَّبَةِ الَّتِي لَا يَبِينُ مِنْهَا إلَّا عَيْنَاهَا وَمَحَاجِرُهَا لَمْ أَرَ فِيهِ نَصًّا وَالظَّاهِرُ أَنَّهُ لَا فَرْقَ وَلَا سِيَّمَا إذَا كَانَتْ جَمِيلَةً فَكَمْ فِي الْمَحَاجِرِ مِنْ حَنَاجِرَ ( قَوْلُهُ فَلَيْسَ فِيهِ أَنَّهَا نَظَرَتْ إلَى وُجُوهِهِمْ إلَخْ ) أَوْ أَنَّ ذَلِكَ لَعَلَّهُ كَانَ قَبْلَ نُزُولِ الْحِجَابِ أَوْ كَانَتْ عَائِشَةُ لَمْ تَبْلُغْ مَبْلَغَ النِّسَاءِ إذْ ذَاكَ
فعليك أخي بها فقد نص المحققون في المذهب على أنه ما لم يتعرض له النووي و الرافعي و الرملي و الهيتمي و زكريا الأنصاري يؤخذ بكلام الشربيني-عليهم جميعا رحمة الله-د
الخاتمة:
بعد هذا العرض السابق أخي تعلم أن الصحيح عند الشافعية وجوب ستر الوجه و الكفين لا ندبهما
Salamu ‘alaykum Safiyya from Malaysia,
The article claims that Imam Al-Bayhaqi (r) held this view. Though I certainly do not doubt such a view he held, considering most if not all of the major Shafi’i Imams held the face to be ‘awrah fin-nathr, I would like to see where he said it. Is it possible you could provide such?
jazakum Allahu Khayran,
Abu Layth
Salaam to all Muslims,
Abul Layth, I’ll get back to you some time next week, Insha Allah as my hands are full right now and can hardly recall any statement of Imam Al-Bayhaqi’s statement in support of the issue discussed. Please give me time to find that statement of his. Thank you. Btw, to Abdul Rahiim As-Siini, the issue about Niqab as per Shafi’ie is finalised as it is evident from the verdict of Shaykhayn (Nawawi & Rafi’ie) – the Qawl Mu’tamad – opon which the Fatwa is pronounced upon that it is WAJIB LA-DHATIHI for women to veil their faces in the presence of non-Mahram men as the face is considered ‘Awra pertaining to Nazar (i.e. prohibited gaze) as far as free adult woman is concerned (which is clearly spelt out by Imam Nawawi in his Minhaj At-Talibin – that the face and hands being the ‘Awra of women who have reached puberty whether or not there is likelihood of temptation) – the view of certain giants like Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami (reported to hold the view that woman’s face is not ‘Awra) may safely be dismissed as this is his personal view and many Shafi’ie scholars are reported to have their personal views about many issues against the views of Shaykhayn like As-Subki, As-Suyuti, et al but when it comes to pronounce Fatwa of the School (regarding what is relied-upon), they did not issue any verdict except according the the Tarjeeh made by the Shaykhayn. Since Shaykh Khatib Shirbini has declared the opinion of Qadi Iyad as “Dha’eef” and Shaykhul-Islam Zakariyya Al-Ansari has denounced it as “Mardud”, one (a Shafi’ie) has no choice but to adhere to Qawl-Mu’tamad rendered by the Shaykhayn regarding this issue and not to rely to other [weaker] opinions that exist within the School as this is (as Imam As-Subki said) tantamount to following one’s whims and fancies and mocking the religion. Wallahu’alam.
Typos: WAJIB LA-DHATIHI = WAJIB LI-DHATIHI
Assalamu ‘alaikkum wa Rahmathullah ya ikhwaan,
Great piece of research work, masha Allah. May Allah bless all who help in clarifying the Deen to the people.
I came across these hadiths which supports non-veiling. Could you please throw more light on this. Has any Shafi’i scholar commented on this hadith. Jazaak Allahu khairan.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 22 Narrated Anas: The Prophet stayed for three days between Khaibar and Medina, and there he consummated his marriage to Safiyya bint Huyai. I invited the Muslims to the wedding banquet in which neither meat nor bread was offered. He ordered for leather dining-sheets to be spread, and dates, dried yoghurt and butter were laid on it, and that was the Prophet’s wedding banquet. The Muslims wondered, “Is she (Saffiyya) considered as his wife or his slave girl?” Then they said, “If he orders her to veil herself, she will be one of the mothers of the Believers; but if he does not order her to veil herself, she will be a slave girl. So when the Prophet proceeded from there, he spared her a space behind him (on his she-camel) and put a screening veil between her and the people.
and
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 523 Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiya was amongst those who were ordered to use a veil.
and
Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 7, Book 65, Number 375 Narrated Anas: I know (about) the Hijab (the order of veiling of women) more than anybody else. Ubai bin Ka’b used to ask me about it….”
and
Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2482: Narrated Thabit ibn Qays: A woman called Umm Khallad came to the Prophet (saws) while she was veiled. She was searching for her son who had been killed (in the battle) Some of the Companions of the Prophet (saws) said to her: You have come here asking for your son while veiling your face? She said: If I am afflicted with the loss of my son, I shall not suffer the loss of my modesty. The Apostle of Allah (saws) said: You will get the reward of two martyrs for your son. She asked: Why is that so, Apostle of Allah? He replied: Because the people of the Book have killed him.
and
Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet (saws) brought Fatimah a slave which he donated to her. Fatimah wore a garment which, when she covered her head, did not reach her feet, and when she covered her feet by it, that garment did not reach her head. When the Prophet (saws) saw her struggle, he said: There is no harm to you: Here is only your father and slave. Sunan Abu Dawud: Book 32, Number 4094.
All the good is from Allah and the bad is from the evil of my nafs and the eternally accursed.
Jazaakumullah khairan.
Wassalaam,
Aslam
assalaamu alaikum
You said that showing face is sinful. Imam Zaid Shakir writes:
“The Ja’faris and Zaydis among the Shiites, and all of the Sunni schools, with the exception of a small group of Hanbalis, agree that the face of a believing woman is NOT part of her body that is SINFUL to display publicly (‘Awra).
They argue that were that the case, she would not be enjoined to display her face during prayer, the pilgrimage or during those human interactions that demand her identification.”
http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/the_lawful_nature_of_niqab_face_veils/
whats your opinion on this ?
Wa alaykum as salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
If you quote, quote honestly. The article also states a mere sentence later:
“However, as mentioned above, the Shafi’i and Hanbali schools hold that it is from the rules of normal public decorum, affirmed by Qur’anic degree, that a woman covers her face in public.”
Saying the face is awrah is different from saying that she has an obligation to conceal her face: even if it seems the same in practice, the difference encompasses situations where for various reasons it can be considered superior not to cover the face. Furthermore this distinction informs us that the covering of the face is not connected with the face being awrah, but is a separate obligation with its own individual conditions and evidences. What that means is, just because the face is not part of the awrah, doesn’t negate that there is obligation to cover it.
(That all cats have tails, does not mean that horses don’t as well — but that doesn’t make a horse a cat.)
Abu Layth, do all 4 madhabs say that it is an obligation to cover the face?