English | Arabic
peer reviewed with scholarly confirmations
by Shadee Elmasry
In the name of Allah the Merciful the Compassionate
and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger Muhammad ﷺ
Scholarly Confirmations
1 Shaykh Mahmoud Shabieb
Head of Al-Majd Institute, Azhar graduate, and student of Shaykh Ahmad Taha Rayyan
“I confirm this and that this is the madhab, and that merely pulling the garment over the face is not the reason of the discouragement. Niqab and face-covering without a reason is makruh because it is excess and extreme in religion.”
2 Dr. Muhammad Abd Allah
Azhar graduate, professor of comparative fiqh
“The relied upon position amongst them (the Malikis) is discouragement absolutely (mutlaqan) and the reason for this according to them is going to extremes in religion (ghuluw). At the very least, he (one who says this) has not departed from a well-considered statements in the madhab.”
3 Shaykh Ibrahim Abb Al-Shinqiti
Professor of Sharia at the Nabighiyya College in Mauritania
He confirms that the relied upon position for Malikis regarding covering the face without a reason is discouragement because it is an extreme in religion (ghuluw).
4 Murabit bin Sied bin Isa
Student of Murabit al-Hajj and teacher in the city of Madina al-Munawwara
“I have read the summary written by Shaykh Shadee Elmasry and found it to be an accurate and detailed summary of soundly transmitted and explicit texts.”
5 Shaykh Ahmad al-Maghili
Chief Judge of Adrar in Algeria
“In the hadith, ‘He remained silent about matters out of mercy for you, so do not pry into them.’ This matter is not one of the things Allah remained silent on it. Rather, it has clear guidance in the hadith of Asma’: ‘If a woman reaches maturity, it is not good/acceptable for any of her [body] to be seen except this and this, and he pointed to his face and hands.’ Hence, the face and hands are not ‘awra for a woman and she may show them. This is how the women of the Companions were; they did not cover their faces from men. It is over-bearing (takalluf) and extremism (tanattu’). Further, it is a cause of suspicion and doubt. When someone wants to commit a crime, they cover their face, be they man or woman. They conceal their identity by covering their face. Identities are known by the face. If they cover, one will not male from female. This is not exclusive to salat. It is in salat and outside of it. It (face-covering) is not even recommended. Rather it is discouraged, and the reason is that it causes doubt, suspicion, and concealment of who is a man and who is a woman. Hence, it is blameworthy rationally and textually.
Key Terms
satr al-wajh face-covering in any form
rida’ a cloth that covers the head
isdal pulling the head-covering down to cover the face
burqa’ a garment placed on the head that covers the face and torso
niqab covering the nose and mouth by wrapping it around the face
or pinning it to the sides of the hijab
Introduction
At the heart of the difference of opinion on niqab, is not just the ruling on face-veiling, but rather the meaning of certain texts in the Maliki school. When two parties reach opposing conclusions from the same text, how is such an impasse handled? Naturally (and this is the very purpose of following living schools of thought), the elders of the school will arbitrate as to the intended meaning of the text. (This is the case with the Quran itself, which announces that it contains mutashabihat.) If both interpretations can present support from living scholars, then we have ikhtilaf, and fatwa may be given with either statement provided they are of equal standing (see Nabigha’s Butlihiyya on al-qawl al-musawi). If only one side can provide support, or if there is an overwhelming agreement on one understanding, then that is the correct one, and fatwa is given by it.
Texts from the Madhab
We begin with the relied upon texts in fatwa that mention discouragement:
Dusuqi said: His saying “the niqab of a woman”, i.e. in salat or outside of it, whether she wears niqab for its sake or not. His saying “because it is from ghuluw,” i.e. excess in religion, since this did not sunna did not transmit this. His saying, “niqab is makruh absolutely,” i.e. in salat or outside of it, whether it is for its sake or not, as long as it is not a custom in which case there is no discouragement outside of salat.
‘Illish said: Niqab is discouraged (citing Khalil), i.e. covering her face up to her eyes in prayer and outside of it, and this is even moreso in the case of a man, except if it is the custom of people, in which case it is not discouraged outside of salat. It is discouraged in the prayer absolutely because it is excess in religion.
Nafrawi said: His saying “not to cover,” i.e. in salat, “his nose or face in salat,” i.e. it is discouraged for everyone praying, even women, to wear niqab in salat, and that is covering her face up to her eyes. This is what is meant by his saying, the nose should not be covered. Wrapping the bottom lip is also discouraged because it is extreme in religion and negates humble devotion (khushu’). As for outside of salat, if it is a custom of the people then there is no discouragement, but it is recommended to leave it off in the prayer. If it is not the custom of the people, then it is makruh even outside of salat, because it is the action of the arrogant.
As for the opinion stating encouragement, Qadi ‘Iyyad said:
This is not obligatory upon her, but it is recommended and sunna.
Analysis
The original state is that a woman’s face and hands are uncovered. This was the action of the best of women, namely the Companions, and this is known from direct text of Quran: Women are no longer permitted to you (the Prophet) after this, nor as replacements, even if you are impressed with their beauty. How would the Prophet ﷺ be impressed by their beauty if they were covering their faces? The Companions and all other legally responsible Muslims were commanded: Tell the believers to lower their gaze. There would be no need to lower the gaze if faces were covered.
The next foundational point is that the rules of women’s coverage outside of worship is built upon the rules found within worship. They are not differentiated. Qarafi states: a person praying is calling on their Lord so it is incumbent upon him to appear in the best of states. Ibn Abi Zayd connected the two: Nothing should show from her to a non-mahram except what shows in salat. And Qadi ‘Abd al-Wahhab: We observe that covering the ‘awra is not just obligatory in salat, because it must be covered elsewhere. We see that a woman’s clothing in acts of worship and outside of it in the presence of non-mahrams is one and the same. The contemporary scholar Habib Ben Tahir affirms this pricinple: The face and the hands in worship and out of it are one and the same. Hence, when searching for women’s clothing rules in daily life, we search in the chapters of worship. As for the Mothers of the Believers covering their faces at all times, Qadi ‘Iyyad states: There is no disagreement that the obligation to cover the face was specific to the wives of the Prophet ﷺ.
Seeing that worship calls for the loftiest of appearances, it is not appropriate to deviate from it except due to a need. Hence, covering the face is only applicable due to fitna or custom (such as the Touareg who covered their faces due to sand which then became a custom of their daily dress). Fitna here is defined by ‘Adawi as: When she knows or speculates that [a man] is looking at her with the intent of pleasure; this is what has been confirmed. After establishing the legal cause, we ask, what then is the ruling on this face covering? Is it obligatory, recommended, or merely permissible? Sawi states: It is obligatory on her to cover her face if she thinks there is fitna. Mawwaq relates from Qadi ‘Abd al-Wahhab: It is not necessary on her and it is on the man to lower his gaze. In the Ikmal, Qadi ‘Iyyad rules: This is not obligatory upon her, but it is recommended and sunna. The indication that Qadi ‘Iyyad is referring to coverage upon fitna as opposed to in all cases is that the context is lowering the gaze, in his commentary on the hadith, “I asked the Prophet ﷺ about suddenly seeing a woman, and he commanded me to lower my gaze.” However, this is not definitive and it has been said that he intended an absolute ruling. If this was the case, then it is also said that Qadi ‘Iyyad’s individual rulings do not define the madhab. Finally, Ahmad Zarruq made a distinction: A beautiful woman must cover, but otherwise it is recommended. All of this regards covering due to fitna, not absolutely in all cases. Also, this regards a Muslim man looking at her. As for the non-Muslim ajnabi (non-mahram), fitna from him is to be expected even more, since he does not believe in lowering the gaze. ‘Illish said: As for the non-Muslim ajnabi, all of her body including her face and hands is ‘awra in relation to him. (Namely, it is to be covered even if she does not fear fitna.) If the kafir has power to harm her due to her face-covering, then she has the choice to bear the harm or not, as it is a choice between to evils.
As for covering the face without a reason (in any manner), this is what is excess in religion, and it is what Khalil was referring to as excess (ziyada), extreme (ghuluw), and discouraged (makruh) when he said: The woman who prays in niqab does not repeat her prayer because she did what she was commanded to and more, except that she did something discouraged since this is extreme (ghuluw). What he is referring to as excessive and extreme is the covering of the face for no reason, not the manner of wrapping because there is nothing excessive in how one wraps garments. The excess is covering more than what Allah commanded without a reason. A woman wearing niqab in salat without a reason in fact results in two discouraged acts: excess in coverage and wearing a barrier between one’s face and the ground.
As for the manner in which a woman covers her face, it is demonstrated by the Mother of the Believers, ‘Aisha when the obligation of her face-covering was suspended, namely in the state of ihram in Hajj. Qarafi states: She may pull down her rida’ from her head to her face for coverage, and if there is no reason, then she does not do so. This is due to the hadith of ‘Aisha: When riders would be near us while we were with the Prophet ﷺ in ihram, we would pull down (sadalna) our head covering over our faces. When they moved on, we would lift it up again. Hence, her face was uncovered, but when a reason arose, she covered it. When the reason went away, she removed the coverage.
If there is a reason to cover outside of salat and ihram, then she may cover in any way she wishes, with niqab, burqa’, pulling the rida’ over her face, or just by tucking in the edge of her hijab across her face. In ihram, it can only be done by pulling the rida’ over her face because the ihram of women is in her face and her hands; she may not wear a face garment nor wrap anything around it, and the rida’ is considered a head dress, not a face garment. Khalil says: If she [covers her face] by lifting a garment up from the bottom (like a bandana) she pays fidya because it would not remain there except by tying it, as opposed to pulling down [the rida’ which is on her head]. Likewise, face-covering in salat if there is a reason, can only be done by pulling down a head covering beause other than that would involve wearing a barrier between one’s face and the ground as Qarafi clarified: It is recommended that she uncover her face so that it touches the ground directly in prostation, whereas wrapping would cover the nose. (Note: one may have a barrier between the face and the ground such as a rug; the point of discouragement is wearing such a barrier such as gloves or a face mask without a reason.) What then about the prostration on the rida’, isn’t that also wearing a barrier? The answer is that the rida’ is a head dress and hence prostrating on it is permissible just as a man may prostrate on a turban wrap or the edge of his kufi.
Arabic
الحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ والصَّلاةُ والسَّلامُ على رسولِ اللَّهِ وعلى آلِهِ وصَحْبِهِ ومَن والآه
وبعدُ فإنَّ هذا ملخص في مسألة ستر الوجه قي المذهب المالكي. مبدئياً نذكر من المعتمدين الذين صرحوا بالكراهة داخل الصلاة وخارجها:
قال النفراوي: قوله: (ولا يغطي) أي المصلي (أنفه أو وجهه في الصلاة) أي يكره لكل مصل ولو امرأة الانتقاب في الصلاة وهي تغطية الوجه حتى يصل إلى عينيه، وهو المراد بقوله: ولا يغطي أنفه، ويكره أيضا التلثم بأن يغطي شفته السفلى؛ لأنه من الغلو في الدين وهو مناف للخشوع، وأما في غير الصلاة فإن كان الفاعل عادته ذلك فلا كراهة حيث كان ممن عرفوا بذلك، ويستحب تركه في الصلاة، وأما من لم تكن عادته ذلك فيكره له حتى في غير الصلاة؛ لأنه من فعل المتكبرين.
قال الدسوقي: (قوله: وانتقاب امرأة) أي سواء كانت في صلاة أو في غيرها كان الانتقاب فيها لأجلها أو لا (قوله: لأنه من الغلو) أي الزيادة في الدين إذ لم ترد به السنة السمحة…(قوله: فالنقاب مكروه مطلقا) أي كان في الصلاة أو خارجها سواء كان فيها لأجلها أو لغيرها ما لم يكن لعادة وإلا فلا كراهة فيه خارجها بخلاف تشمير الكم وضم الشعر فإنه إنما يكره فيها إذا كان فعله لأجلها.
وقال عليش: (و) كره (انتقاب امرأة) أي تغطية وجهها إلى عينيها في الصلاة وخارجها والرجل أولى ما لم يكن عادة قوم فلا يكره في غير الصلاة ويكره فيها مطلقا لأنه من الغلو في الدين. فإن كان تغطية بعض الوجه غلو، فبمفهوم الأولى فستر كله أيضاً غلو، ولا ذكر لطريقة الربط فليس هناك ربط مشروع ليكون في ذلك غلو ولا زيادة.
وقال القاضي عياض:
فالأصلُ للمرأة كشفُ وجهِها وهو فعلُ خيرِ النِّساءِ وأعلمهُن وأتقاهن، أي الصحابيات وذلك بنصِّ القرآنِ: لَّا يَحِلُّ لَكَ ٱلنِّسَآءُ مِنۢ بَعدُ وَلَآ أَن تَبَدَّلَ بِهِنَّ مِن أَزوَٰج وَلَو أَعجَبَكَ حُسنُهُنَّ. فلا يمكن معرفة حسنهن لو سَتَرْنَ وجوههن. وقد أُمِرَ رجالُ الصحابةِ وسائر المكلَّفين من الأُمة: قُل لِّلمُؤمِنِينَ يَغُضُّواْ مِن أَبصَٰرِهِم، ولا حاجة لغض البصر مع وجود السِّتر. فهذا هو الأصل.
وأن أحكامَ لباسِ المرأةِ خارج العبادات مبنيةٌ على أحكام الإحرام والصلاة. قال القرافي: المصلي يناجي ربه فيشترط في حقه أفضل الهيآت. وقد ربط بينهما ابن أبي زيد: ولا يبدو منها لغير ذوي محرم غير ما يبدو في الصلاة. والقاضي عبد الوهاب: ووجدنا ستر العورة لا يختص وجوبه بالصلاة لأنه يلزمه سترها في غيرها. فأحكام لباس المرأة في العبادات وخارجها سواء. لخص ذلك المحققُ المعاصر العلّامة الحبيب بن طاهرِ قائلاً: الوجه والكفين في العبادة وفي غيرها سواء. أما أُمهات المؤمنين، فقال القاضي عياض أنه: لا خلافَ أنَّ فرضَ سترِ الوجهِ مما اُختُصَّ به أَزوَاجُ النبي صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم.
وكون أن لباس الإحرام والصلاة هو أفضل الهيآت للمرأة، فلا ينبغي التنحي عنه إلا لعلَّةٍ. فلذلك سترُ الوجهِ معللٌ بالعادةِ أو الفتنةِ التي هي ما ذكره العدوي: حَيثُ عَلِمَتْ أو ظَنَّتْ أنه يُنظَر لها بقصدِ لَذَّةٍ كذا قُرِّرَ. وهل الستر حينئذٍ واجب أو مندوب أو مباح؟ قال والصاوي: يجب عليها ستره إن ظنت الفتنة بها. ونقل المواق عن القاضي عبد الوهاب: لا يجب عليها ذلك وإنما على الرجل غض بصره. وفي الإكمال للقاضي عياض: وفى هذا كله عند العلماء حجة أنه ليس بواجب أن تستر المرأة وجهها، وإنما ذلك استحباب وسنة لها. والذي يَدُلُّ على أنه يقصد بذلك عند التعرض لنظر الرجال أن سياق الكلام حول شرح حديث ’سألت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن نظر الفجاءة فأمرنى أن أصرف بصرى.‘ وقيل أنه لا، بل قصد الإطلاق. فأن كان كذلك فالجواب أن القاضي عياض لا يؤخذ بانفراداته لأنه من المتأخرين. وفصَّل زروق بأنَّ: الجميلة فيجب عليها وغيرها فيستحب. وهذا كله بوجود العلة المذكورة مع الأجنبي المسلم. أما الأجنبي الكافر الذي لا يؤمن بغض البصر، فالفتنة منه أحرى حتى قال عليش: وأما الأجنبي الكافر فجميع جسدها حتى وجهها وكفيها عورة بالنسبة له. هذا لعدم اعتقاده غضَ البصرِ. وإن كان يتطاول الكافر على المتنقبة فهي مخيرة.
أما ستر الوجه دون علةٍ فهذا هو الزيادة في الدين وهو الذي أشار إليه خليل بالزِّيادةِ والغلوِ والكراهيةِ حيث قال: والمُتَنَقِّبةُ لا تُعِيدُ لأنها فعلت ما أُمِرَتْ به وزادت إلا أنها فعلت فعلا مكروها إذ هو من الغلو. المفهوم من قوله الزيادة والغو أنه الستر بلا عِلَّة، لا طريقة اللبس أو الربط للنقاب ولا وضع الحائل بينها وبين الأرض، لأن ليس في وضع الحائل غلوٌ ولا زيادةٌ، إنما الزيادةُ في تغطيةِ الوجهِ دونَ علَّةٍ. فالمنتقبة في الصَّلاةِ دون علة قد ارتكبت مكروهين: زيادة في الستر ووضع حائل.
أما كيفية الستر فيُمَثَّلُ في فعل أُم المؤمنين في الحج حيث صُرِفَ عنها فرضيةُ النقابِ. قال القرافي: ولها شد ردائَها من فوقِ رأسها على وجهها للستر وإلا فلا، لحديث عائشة رضي الله عنها كان الركبان يمرون بنا ونحن مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مُحرماتٌ فإذا حاذونا سَدَلَتْ إحدانا من رأسها على وجهها. فإذا جاوزونا كشفناه. فهكذا كانت مكشوفةُ الوجهِ، فإذا وُجِدَ السَّببُ سترتْ، وإذا زال السَّببُ كَشَفَتْ.
وتستر وجهَها (أو بعضَه) خارجَ الصلاة والإحرام كما شائت إذا وُجِد السبب، بالنقاب أو البرقع أو الرداء أو بطرف الحجاب. أما في الإحرام فلا يكون الستر إلا بسدل الرداء أو الخمار من رأسها على وجهها لأن ما سوى ذلك يكون لباسٌ للوجه وإحاطة بالعضو كما قال خليل: وإن رفعته من أسفل وجهها افتدت لأنه لا يثبت حتى تعقده بخلاف السدل. وكذلك ستر الوجه في الصلاة لا يكون إلا بالسدل أيضاً لأن ما سواه يحول بين وجهها والأرض كما عبر عنه القرافي: ويُستحبُّ كشفُهُ لمباشرةِ السجودِ والتَّلثُّمُ يستُرُ الأنفَ. وأما السجود على الإسدال فجائز كالسجود على كور العمامة للرجال لأنَّ السدل من لباس الرأس لا الوجه.
وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وعى آله وصحبه وسلم
ذكرُ من أقَـرَّ مضمون هذا البحث
١ الشيخ محمود شبيب
مدير معهد المجد، خريج الأزهر، ومن كبار تلامذة الشيخ أحمد طه ريان. يقول:
”أقر بما فيه وأن هذا هو المذهب. وأن مجرد شد الثياب على الوجه لا يؤدي إلى الكراهة. والنقاب وستر الوجه دون علة مكروه لأنه زيادة وغلو في الدين.“
٢ الدكتور محمد عبد الله
خريج الأزهر، أستاذ الفقه المقارن
”المعتمد عندهم هو الكراهة مطلقاً وعللوه بأنه غلو في الدين…وعلى أقل تقدير، لم يخرج عن قولٍ معتبر في المذهب.“
٣ الشيخ إبراهيم آب ولد حرمة الشنقيطي
يقر بأن المعتمد عند المالكية في مسألة ستر الوجه بغير علة الكراهة المطلقة وهذا لأنه غلو في الدين.
٤ المرابط بن سيد بن عيسى
تلميذ مرابط الحج ومدرس بالمدينة المنورة
”وبعد فقد اطلعت على التلخيص الذي كتبه شيخنا شادى فإذا هو جامعاً بين الشمولية والدقة بالنقول الصحيحة الصريحة.“
٥ الشيخ أحمد المغيلي
قاضي القضاة بأضرار في الجزائر
”في الحديث ’وسكت عن أشياء رحمةً بكم فلا تبحثوا عنها.‘ ثم إن هذا ليس من المسكوتِ عنه، بل له بيانٌ من حديث أسماء،’إن المرأة إذا بلغت المحيض لم تصلح أن يرى منها إلا هذا وهذا، وأشار إلى وجهه وكفيه.‘ فالوجه والكفان ليسا بعورة للمرأة، يجوز لها كشفُها وهكذا كانت الصحابيات. ما كنَّ يغطين وجوههنَّ عن الرجال. هذا تكلُّفٌ في الدين وتنطعٌ، بل قد يكون ريبةً وشكّاً، لأن لو أحدٌ ذهب للفساد يغطي وجهه، رجلٌ كان أو امرأةً، يغطي وجهه حتى لا يعرف. فالإنسانُ يُعرف من وجهِهِ، فإذا غطّاه كيف تميز بين رجلٍ وامرأةٍ. ولا يختص بالصلاة ولا بغيرها. هذا في الصلاة وبغير الصلاة…وهي حتى ليست من المندوبات بل من المكروهات. والعلة أن النقاب ريبة، فلا تتميز المرأة من الرجل ولا الرجل من المرأة فهو مذموم عقلاً وشرعاً.