justoneofmillion
Junior Member
:salam2:Further quotes from classical Scholars of different madhabs on Awra.
From the Hanafi Madhab:
In al-Mabsut of Muhammad al-Shaybani (vol.3, 56-58):
وأما المرأة الحرة التي لا نكاح بينه وبينها ولا حرمة ممن يحل له نكاحها فليس ينبغي له أن ينظر إلى شيء منها مكشوفا إلا الوجه والكف. ولا بأس بأن ينظر إلى وجهها وإلى كفها ولا ينظر إلى شيء غير ذلك منها وهذا قول أبي حنيفة وقال الله تبارك وتعالى (وقل للمؤمنات يغضضن من أبصارهن ويحفظن فروجهن ولا يبدين زينتهن إلا ما ظهر منها) ففسر المفسرون أن ما ظهر منها الكحل والخاتم والكحل زينة الوجه والخاتم زينة الكف فرخص في هاتين الزينتين ولا بأس بأن ينظر إلى وجهها وكفها إلا أن يكون إنما ينظر إلى ذلك اشتهاء منه لها فان كان ذلك فليس ينبغي له أن ينظر إليه.
The free woman whom (a) he is not married to or (b) there is no sacred relationship and whom he is allowed to marry, he should not look at any part of her uncovered except that face and hand. It is ok for him to look at her face and hand but he shouldn’t look at any other part of her. This is Abu Hanifa’s view. And Allah the Mighty and Majestic said (Tell the believing women to lower their gaze, protect their private parts and show of their beauty only that which is apparent). The scholars of tafsir said that what is apparent is the eyeshadow and the ring. The eyeshadow is the beauty of the face, and the ring is the beauty of the hand. So he allowed these two beauties. Thus He allowed looking at her hand and her face, unless he’s looking at it with desire. And if that is the case he should not look at it.
Hujjat al-Islam al-Jassas (d.370h) says in Ahkam al-Qur'an (vol.3, p.408):
"They do not show their adornment (zina) except that which is apparent" [al-Nur]... Our associates (i.e. the Hanafis) said: what is meant is the face and hands because kuhl (eyeliner) is the adornment of the face and dye and rings are the adornment of the hands. So if it is permissible to look at the adornment of the face and the hands then of course it is permissible to look at the face and hands. And the evidence that the face and hands of a woman are not 'awra (what should be covered) is that she prays with her face and hands uncovered, and if they were 'awra she would have to cover them the way she covers that which is 'awra.
[After talking about the conditions where a man can look at a woman's face and hands, he continues]
Ibn Mas'ud's view that what is apparent is the clothes has no meaning. Because it is known that what is mentioned is the adornment, but what is intended is the part of the body on which the adornment is placed. Don't you see that the rest of of things that she adorns herself with -trinkets, bracelets, anklets and necklaces- can be shown to men if she is not wearing them? Thus we know that what is meant is the place where the adornment is worn as He said in the following part of the recitation "And they should only show their adornment (zina) to their husband" and what is meant is where the adornment is worn. So to interpret it (i.e. adornment) to mean the clothes doesn't make any sense.
Al-Tahawi (d.321h), Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, vol.2, pp.338-339:
[When discussing whether men’s thighs are ‘awra he draws a parallel]
This can be seen by reasoned arguments. We see that a man may look at a woman who is not related to him in any way and look at her face and hands. He will not look above that at her head, nor below that at her stomach, back, thighs or calves. But we see that the mahram may look at her chest, her hair, her face, her head, her calves, but will not look between those two parts of her body.
(vol.3, p.377) [When discussing whether it’s permissible to look at women for marriage]
Once it is established that looking at a woman’s face to marry her is halal, its ruling is no longer the ruling of the ‘awra, because we know that what is ‘awra is not permissible to see by the one seeking marriage. Do you not see that the one who wants to marry a woman cannot see her hair because it’s haram, or what is below that of the body, in the same way as it is forbidden for the one who does not want to marry her?
Thus once it is established that looking at her face is halal for the one who wants to marry her, it is also established that it is permissible for the one who does not want to marry her if he does not intend by looking that which is haram.
And it is said about the statement of Allah the mighty and majestic: “They do not show their adornment (zina) except that which is apparent”, the exception being the face and hands, and this agrees with the interpretation we mentioned of the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.). And amongst those who adopted this view: Muhammad bin al-Hasan. This is how Sulayman bin Shu‘ayb narrated it to me from his father from Muhammad. And all of this is the view of Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, may Allah grant them all his mercy.
al-Sarakhsi (d.490h) in al-Mabsut (vol.12, p.371):
It is aceptable to look at her face and hands. The face is where one wears kuhl and the hands is where one wears rings and dye, and that is the meaning of His the exalted’s statement “except that which is apparent”. And the fear of fitna may also be by looking at her clothes. Someone once said: “Nothing deluded me like the dye on her hands, the kuhl in her eyes and her coloured garments.” Yet there is no doubt that it is permissible to look at her clothes and the fear of fitna is not taken into account, and the same occurs with her hands and face. And al-Hasan bin Ziyad narrated from Abu Hanifa that it is permissible to see her feet also, and al-Tahawi also mentioned it. This is because, just as she necessarily shows her face in her transactions with men, and just as she necessarily shows her hands when she’s taken and giving things, she also necessarily shows her feet if she is walking barefoot or with sandals because she may not always have socks available.
And in Jami‘ al-Baramika it is mentioned from Abu Yusuf that it is permissible to look at her forearms also because when she makes bread or washes clothes she necessarily shows her forearms. It is said: It is also permissible to look at her teeth because they show when she is speaking to men.
And all of this is only if there is no desire involved in looking. If he knows that if he looks he will feel desire it is not permissible for him to look at her at all because of his (s.a.w.) saying: “The one who looks at the beauty of a non-mahram woman with desire will have lead poured in his eyes on the Day of Judgment.”
Al-Samarqandi (d.539h) in Tuhfat al-Fuqaha (vol.3, pp.334-335):
[Talking about non-mahram women] He is forbidden to look at her from her head to her toes, except for the face and hands, as it is acceptable to look at them without desire. But he if he thinks that he will feel desire it is forbidden for him to look.
As for touching, it is forbidden whether with desire or without desire. This is if she is a young woman. But if she is old it is ok to shake her hand if he thinks he will not feel desire.
It is not permissible to shake hands if she will feel desire even if the man does not feel desire.
Under necessity it is permissible to look even if feeling desire. For example, the qadi and the witness may look at her face in court when taking witness, or if he wants to marry her, because the point [of looking in these cases] is not to satisfy one’s desire, as is narrated from the Prophet (‘alayhi salam) that he said to al-Mughira bin Shu‘ba “If you look at her it may be more appropriate to enrich your marriage.” (translation of this hadith is a bit rough)
As for looking at the feet: Is it forbidden? It is mentioned in Kitab al-Istihsan that it is ‘awra as regards looking, but it is not ‘awra in prayer. In al-Ziyadat an indication is mentioned that it is not ‘awra as regards the prayer.
But Ibn Shuja‘ mentioned from al-Hasan from Abu Hanifa that they are not ‘awra. In terms of looking they are like the face and hands.
Maliki Madhhab
Malik said in the Mudawwana regarding zihar (vol.3, pp.82-83):
قلت: أرأيت المرأة إذا ظاهر منها زوجها هل يجب عليها أن تمنعه نفسها؟ قال: قال مالك: نعم، تمنعه نفسها قال: ولا يصلح له أن ينظر إلى شعرها ولا إلى صدرها. قال: فقلت لمالك أفينظر إلى وجهها، فقال: نعم وقد ينظر غيره أيضا إلى وجهها.
I (Sahnun) said: What do you see regarding a woman whose husband has done zihar of her. Does she deny herself to him? He (Ibn al-Qasim) said: Malik said: Yes, she denies herself to him. He also said: And he should not look at her hair and at her chest. He (Ibn al-Qasim) said: So I said to Malik: May he look at her face? He said: Yes, and someone else can also look at her face.
And in the ‘Utbiyya (with Ibn Rushd’s commentary al-Bayan wa’l-Tahsil, vol. 4, p.304):
وسئل مالك عن الرجل يريد تزويج المرأة فيريد أن يغتفلها النظر إما من الكوة ونحوها لينظر إلى جمالها ، قال : ليدخل عليها بإذن ، قال : قلت لا يريد ذلك وإنما يريد أن يغتفلها فقال : ما سمعت فيه شيئا ، فقيل إن قوماً يحدثون في ذلك بأحاديث فقال : وما ذلك ؟ قلت له يقولون إن له ذلك ، قال وما سمعت وإني لأكره ذلك .
Malik was asked about a man who wants to marry a woman and he wants to look at her without her knowing, from a small window or something similar to look at her beauty. He (Malik) said: He should go and see her with permission. I (Talq bin Habib) said: He doesn’t want that. All he wants is to look at her without her knowing. He (Malik) said: I haven’t heard anything about it. Someone said: Some people narrate hadith about it. He said: And what is it? I (Talq) said: They say he can do that. He said: I haven’t heard and I dislike that.
Ibn Habib (who studied with a lot of Malik’s students) said regarding what a woman has to wear during the prayer (Nawadir, vol. 1, p.205):
و لا يَظْهَر منها غيرُ دَوْرِ الوَجْهِ و الكَفَّيْنِ ، و كلُّ ما غَطَّتْ به رأسها فهو خِمارٌ ، و لو كان تحتَ القميص مِئْزَرٌ فهو أَبْلَغُ ، و إلاَّ فَيُجْزِئُهَا ، و لا يَبْدُو منها لغيرِ ذَوِي مَحْرَمٍ غيرَ ما يَبْدُو فِي الصَّلاَةِ
Nothing should be apparent from her except her face and hands. Everything that covers her head is khimar. And if below the qamis she wears a mi’zar it is better, and if not it’s still valid. And she should not show to those who aren’t mahrams anything other than what is shown during the prayer.
Shafi'i Madhhab
al-Shafi‘i said in al-Umm (vol. 1, p.89):
وَكُلُّ الْمَرْأَةِ عَوْرَةٌ إلَّا كَفَّيْهَا وَوَجْهَهَا وَظَهْرَ قَدَمَيْهَا عَوْرَةٌ
All the woman is ‘awra except for her hands and face. And the bottom of her feet are ‘awra.
al-Muzani (student of al-Shafi'i, d.264h) in Mukhtasar al-Muzani fi furu' al-Shafi'iya (p.219):
Allah the exalted said: "They do not show their adornment (zina) except that which is apparent". He said: The face and hands.
al-Rafi'i (d.623h) Fath al-'Aziz sharh al-Wajiz (vol.4, p.88):
As for the woman, if she is a freewoman, all of her body is 'awra except for her face and hands because of His statement: "They do not show their adornment (zina) except that which is apparent". The commentators of Qur'an said it is the face and hands. What is meant is not just the palms. Rather the front and back of both arms up to the elbow are both excluded from the 'awra.
al-Nawawi (d.676h) in Rawdat al-Talibin (p.1170 or vol.2, p.455):
The man looking at the woman: It is forbidden to look at her 'awra, and to her face and hands if he fears fitna. If he does not fear fitna there are two views: Most the associates (i.e. the Shafi'ies), specially the earlier ones, say it is not forbidden because of the saying of Allah the exalted: "They do not show their adornment (zina) except that which is apparent" and this is understood to mean the face and hands. But it is disliked, as stated by Shaykh Abu Hamid [al-Ghazali] and others. The second [view]: it is forbidden. Al-Istakhiri and Abu Ali al-Tabari stated it, and Shaykh Abu Muhammad and al-Imam [al-Juwayni?] preferred it. The author of al-Muhadhdhab (al-Shirazi) and al-Rawayani declared it certain.
Hanbali Madhhab & ibn Taymiyyah
al-Insaf by al-Mardawi on the woman’s ‘awra (vol.1, pp.195-196):
قوله: "والحرة كلها عورة حتى ظفرها وشعرها إلا الوجه".
الصحيح من المذهب: أن الوجه ليس بعورة وعليه الأصحاب وحكاه القاضي إجماعا وعنه الوجه عورة أيضا قال الزركشي أطلق الإمام أحمد القول بأن جميعها عورة وهو محمول على ما عدا الوجه أو على غير الصلاة انتهى وقال بعضهم الوجه عورة وإنما كشف في الصلاة للحاجة قال الشيخ تقي الدين والتحقيق أنه ليس بعورة في الصلاة وهو عورة في باب النظر إذا لم يجز النظر إليه انتهى.
قوله: "وفي الكفين روايتان".
وأطلقهما في الجامع الصغير والهداية والمبهج والفصول والتذكرة له والمذهب ومسبوك الذهب والمستوعب والكافي والهادي والخلاصة والتلخيص والبلغة والمحرر والشرح وابن تميم والفائق وابن عبيدان والزركشي والمذهب الأحمد والحاوي الصغير"
إحداهما: هما عورة وهي المذهب عليه الجمهور قال في الفروع اختارها الأكثر قال الزركشي هي اختيار القاضي في التعليق قال وهو ظاهر كلام أحمد وجزم به الخرقي وفي المنور والمنتخب والطريق الأقرب وقدمه في الإيضاح والرعاية والنظم وتجريد العناية وإدراك الغاية والفروع.
والرواية الثانية: ليستا بعورة جزم به في العمدة والإفادات والوجيز والنهاية والنظم واختارها المجد في شرحه وصاحب مجمع البحرين: وابن منجا وابن عبيدان وابن عبدوس في تذكرته والشيخ تقي الدين.
قلت: وهو الصواب وقدمه في الحاوي الكبير وابن رزين في شرحه وصححه شيخنا في تصحيح المحرر.
تنبيهان: أحدهما: صرح المصنف أن ما عدا الوجه والكفين عورة وهو صحيح وهو المذهب وعليه الأصحاب وحكاه ابن المنذر إجماعا في الخمار واختار الشيخ تقي الدين أن القدمين ليسا بعورة أيضا.
قلت: وهو الصواب.
قوله: "والحرة كلها عورة حتى ظفرها وشعرها إلا الوجه".
الصحيح من المذهب: أن الوجه ليس بعورة وعليه الأصحاب وحكاه القاضي إجماعا وعنه الوجه عورة أيضا قال الزركشي أطلق الإمام أحمد القول بأن جميعها عورة وهو محمول على ما عدا الوجه أو على غير الصلاة انتهى وقال بعضهم الوجه عورة وإنما كشف في الصلاة للحاجة قال الشيخ تقي الدين والتحقيق أنه ليس بعورة في الصلاة وهو عورة في باب النظر إذا لم يجز النظر إليه انتهى.
قوله: "وفي الكفين روايتان".
وأطلقهما في الجامع الصغير والهداية والمبهج والفصول والتذكرة له والمذهب ومسبوك الذهب والمستوعب والكافي والهادي والخلاصة والتلخيص والبلغة والمحرر والشرح وابن تميم والفائق وابن عبيدان والزركشي والمذهب الأحمد والحاوي الصغير"
إحداهما: هما عورة وهي المذهب عليه الجمهور قال في الفروع اختارها الأكثر قال الزركشي هي اختيار القاضي في التعليق قال وهو ظاهر كلام أحمد وجزم به الخرقي وفي المنور والمنتخب والطريق الأقرب وقدمه في الإيضاح والرعاية والنظم وتجريد العناية وإدراك الغاية والفروع.
والرواية الثانية: ليستا بعورة جزم به في العمدة والإفادات والوجيز والنهاية والنظم واختارها المجد في شرحه وصاحب مجمع البحرين: وابن منجا وابن عبيدان وابن عبدوس في تذكرته والشيخ تقي الدين.
قلت: وهو الصواب وقدمه في الحاوي الكبير وابن رزين في شرحه وصححه شيخنا في تصحيح المحرر.
تنبيهان
أحدهما: صرح المصنف أن ما عدا الوجه والكفين عورة وهو صحيح وهو المذهب وعليه الأصحاب وحكاه ابن المنذر إجماعا في الخمار واختار الشيخ تقي الدين أن القدمين ليسا بعورة أيضا.
قلت: وهو الصواب.
The statement: The free woman is ‘awra, even her nails and her hair, except the face.
The correct opinion in the madhhab is that the face isn’t ‘awra, and the ashab are upon this. And the Qadi (Abu Ya‘la) narrated consensus on it. And he also narrates that the face is ‘awra.
Al-Zarkashi said: Imam Ahmad said unrestrictedly that all of her is ‘awra, and it is taken to mean except the face, or outside of the prayer.
Some said: The face is ‘awra and it is only uncovered in the prayer due to necessity.
Shaykh Taqi al-Din (Ibn Taymiyya) said: The tahqiq is that it is not ‘awra in the prayer but it is ‘awra in terms of looking because it is not allowed to look at it.
The statement: There are two narrations regarding the hands.
They (the two narrations) are mentioned in al-Jami al-kabir, al-Hidaya, al-Mubhij, al-Fusul, al-Tadhkira of it, al-Madhhab, Masbuk al-dhahab, al-Mustaw‘ib, al-Kafi, al-Hadi, al-Khulasa, al-Talkhis, al-Bulgha, al-Muharrar, al-Sharh, Ibn Tamim, al-Fa’iq, Ibn ‘Ubaydan, al-Zarkashi, al-Madhhab al-ahmad and al-Hawi al-saghir.
One of the two (narrations): It is ‘awra, and it is the madhhab and the view of the majority.
He (Ibn Muflih) said in al-Furu‘: The majority selected it. He then said: It is the apparent meaning of what Ahmad said, and al-Khiraqi declared it as certain, as it is in al-Munawwar and al-Muntakhab. And it was given precedence in al-Idah, al-Ri‘aya, al-Nazm, Tajrid al-‘inaya, Idrak al-ghaya and al-Furu‘.
The second narration: They are not ‘awra. Declared as certain in al-‘Umda, al-Ifadat, al-Wajiz, al-Nihaya and al-Nazm. Al-Majd (Ibn Taymiyya’s granddad) chose it in his Sharh, as did the author of Majma‘ al-bahrayn, Ibn Munajja, Ibn ‘Ubaydan, Ibn ‘Abdus in his Tadhkira and Shaykh Taqi al-Din.
I say: It is correct, he gave it precedence in al-Hawi al-kabir, as did Ibn Zurayn in his Sharh and our Shaykh confirmed it as sound in his checking of al-Muharrar.
Two points: The author clearly stated: Anything other than the face and hands is ‘awra, and it is sound, and it is the madhhab and the ashab are upon that. And Ibn al-Mundhir claimed it is consensus as regards the khimar. And Shaykh Taqi al-Din chose that the feet are also not ‘awra.
I said: And it is correct.
What one is allowed to look at in a woman (vol. 2, p.1341):
فلا يجوز له النظر إلى الأجنبية قصدا وهو صحيح وهو المذهب.
وجوز جماعة من الأصحاب نظر الرجل من الحرة الأجنبية إلى ما ليس بعورة صلاة.
وجزم به في المستوعب في آدابه وذكره الشيخ تقي الدين رواية.
قال القاضي المحرم ما عدا الوجه والكفين.
وصرح القاضي في الجامع أنه لا يجوز النظر إلى المرأة الأجنبية لغير حاجة.
ثم قال النظر إلى العورة محرم وإلى غير العورة مكروه.
وهكذا ذكر ابن عقيل وأبو الحسين.
وقال أبو الخطاب لا يجوز النظر لغير من ذكرنا إلا أن القاضي أطلق هذه العبارة وحكى الكراهة في غير العورة.
قال الشيخ تقي الدين رحمه الله هل يحرم النظر إلى وجه الأجنبية لغير حاجة رواية عن الإمام أحمد يكره ولا يحرم.
وقال ابن عقيل لا يحرم النظر إلى وجه الأجنبية إذا أمن الفتنة انتهى.
قلت وهذا الذي لا يسع الناس غيره خصوصا للجيران والأقارب غير المحارم الذين نشأ بينهم وهو مذهب الشافعي.
It is not permissible for him to look at a non-mahram woman (ajnabiya) on purpose. It is sound and it is the madhhab. And a group of the madhhab scholars allowed the man to see of the free ajnabiya what is not ‘awra in the prayer. He declared it as certain in al-Mustaw‘ib in the section on adab and Taqi al-Din mentioned it as a narration (from Ahmad).
The Qadi said: What is forbidden is other than the face and hands. The Qadi said in al-Jami‘: It is not permissible to look at an ajnabiya woman except when necessary. Then he said: Looking at the ‘awra is forbidden, and other than the ‘awra is disliked (makruh). And this is what was mentioned by Ibn ‘Aqil and Abu ’l-Husayn. Abu ’l-Khattab said: It is not permissible to look at other than those we mentioned, except that the Qadi used the phrase unrestrictedly and mentioned that it is disliked [to look at] other than the ‘awra.
Shaykh Taqi al-Din (rahimahullah) said: Is it forbidden to look at the face of the ajnabiya without necessity? It is narrated from Imam Ahmad that it’s disliked but it is not forbidden. Ibn ‘Aqil said: It is not forbidden to look at the face of an ajnabiya if he does not fear fitna.
I said: This is what people cannot help doing, specially with neighbours and relatives one has grown up with. And it is the madhhab of al-Shafi‘i
Wassalaam Aleikum warahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.
From the Hanafi Madhab:
In al-Mabsut of Muhammad al-Shaybani (vol.3, 56-58):
وأما المرأة الحرة التي لا نكاح بينه وبينها ولا حرمة ممن يحل له نكاحها فليس ينبغي له أن ينظر إلى شيء منها مكشوفا إلا الوجه والكف. ولا بأس بأن ينظر إلى وجهها وإلى كفها ولا ينظر إلى شيء غير ذلك منها وهذا قول أبي حنيفة وقال الله تبارك وتعالى (وقل للمؤمنات يغضضن من أبصارهن ويحفظن فروجهن ولا يبدين زينتهن إلا ما ظهر منها) ففسر المفسرون أن ما ظهر منها الكحل والخاتم والكحل زينة الوجه والخاتم زينة الكف فرخص في هاتين الزينتين ولا بأس بأن ينظر إلى وجهها وكفها إلا أن يكون إنما ينظر إلى ذلك اشتهاء منه لها فان كان ذلك فليس ينبغي له أن ينظر إليه.
The free woman whom (a) he is not married to or (b) there is no sacred relationship and whom he is allowed to marry, he should not look at any part of her uncovered except that face and hand. It is ok for him to look at her face and hand but he shouldn’t look at any other part of her. This is Abu Hanifa’s view. And Allah the Mighty and Majestic said (Tell the believing women to lower their gaze, protect their private parts and show of their beauty only that which is apparent). The scholars of tafsir said that what is apparent is the eyeshadow and the ring. The eyeshadow is the beauty of the face, and the ring is the beauty of the hand. So he allowed these two beauties. Thus He allowed looking at her hand and her face, unless he’s looking at it with desire. And if that is the case he should not look at it.
Hujjat al-Islam al-Jassas (d.370h) says in Ahkam al-Qur'an (vol.3, p.408):
"They do not show their adornment (zina) except that which is apparent" [al-Nur]... Our associates (i.e. the Hanafis) said: what is meant is the face and hands because kuhl (eyeliner) is the adornment of the face and dye and rings are the adornment of the hands. So if it is permissible to look at the adornment of the face and the hands then of course it is permissible to look at the face and hands. And the evidence that the face and hands of a woman are not 'awra (what should be covered) is that she prays with her face and hands uncovered, and if they were 'awra she would have to cover them the way she covers that which is 'awra.
[After talking about the conditions where a man can look at a woman's face and hands, he continues]
Ibn Mas'ud's view that what is apparent is the clothes has no meaning. Because it is known that what is mentioned is the adornment, but what is intended is the part of the body on which the adornment is placed. Don't you see that the rest of of things that she adorns herself with -trinkets, bracelets, anklets and necklaces- can be shown to men if she is not wearing them? Thus we know that what is meant is the place where the adornment is worn as He said in the following part of the recitation "And they should only show their adornment (zina) to their husband" and what is meant is where the adornment is worn. So to interpret it (i.e. adornment) to mean the clothes doesn't make any sense.
Al-Tahawi (d.321h), Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, vol.2, pp.338-339:
[When discussing whether men’s thighs are ‘awra he draws a parallel]
This can be seen by reasoned arguments. We see that a man may look at a woman who is not related to him in any way and look at her face and hands. He will not look above that at her head, nor below that at her stomach, back, thighs or calves. But we see that the mahram may look at her chest, her hair, her face, her head, her calves, but will not look between those two parts of her body.
(vol.3, p.377) [When discussing whether it’s permissible to look at women for marriage]
Once it is established that looking at a woman’s face to marry her is halal, its ruling is no longer the ruling of the ‘awra, because we know that what is ‘awra is not permissible to see by the one seeking marriage. Do you not see that the one who wants to marry a woman cannot see her hair because it’s haram, or what is below that of the body, in the same way as it is forbidden for the one who does not want to marry her?
Thus once it is established that looking at her face is halal for the one who wants to marry her, it is also established that it is permissible for the one who does not want to marry her if he does not intend by looking that which is haram.
And it is said about the statement of Allah the mighty and majestic: “They do not show their adornment (zina) except that which is apparent”, the exception being the face and hands, and this agrees with the interpretation we mentioned of the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.). And amongst those who adopted this view: Muhammad bin al-Hasan. This is how Sulayman bin Shu‘ayb narrated it to me from his father from Muhammad. And all of this is the view of Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, may Allah grant them all his mercy.
al-Sarakhsi (d.490h) in al-Mabsut (vol.12, p.371):
It is aceptable to look at her face and hands. The face is where one wears kuhl and the hands is where one wears rings and dye, and that is the meaning of His the exalted’s statement “except that which is apparent”. And the fear of fitna may also be by looking at her clothes. Someone once said: “Nothing deluded me like the dye on her hands, the kuhl in her eyes and her coloured garments.” Yet there is no doubt that it is permissible to look at her clothes and the fear of fitna is not taken into account, and the same occurs with her hands and face. And al-Hasan bin Ziyad narrated from Abu Hanifa that it is permissible to see her feet also, and al-Tahawi also mentioned it. This is because, just as she necessarily shows her face in her transactions with men, and just as she necessarily shows her hands when she’s taken and giving things, she also necessarily shows her feet if she is walking barefoot or with sandals because she may not always have socks available.
And in Jami‘ al-Baramika it is mentioned from Abu Yusuf that it is permissible to look at her forearms also because when she makes bread or washes clothes she necessarily shows her forearms. It is said: It is also permissible to look at her teeth because they show when she is speaking to men.
And all of this is only if there is no desire involved in looking. If he knows that if he looks he will feel desire it is not permissible for him to look at her at all because of his (s.a.w.) saying: “The one who looks at the beauty of a non-mahram woman with desire will have lead poured in his eyes on the Day of Judgment.”
Al-Samarqandi (d.539h) in Tuhfat al-Fuqaha (vol.3, pp.334-335):
[Talking about non-mahram women] He is forbidden to look at her from her head to her toes, except for the face and hands, as it is acceptable to look at them without desire. But he if he thinks that he will feel desire it is forbidden for him to look.
As for touching, it is forbidden whether with desire or without desire. This is if she is a young woman. But if she is old it is ok to shake her hand if he thinks he will not feel desire.
It is not permissible to shake hands if she will feel desire even if the man does not feel desire.
Under necessity it is permissible to look even if feeling desire. For example, the qadi and the witness may look at her face in court when taking witness, or if he wants to marry her, because the point [of looking in these cases] is not to satisfy one’s desire, as is narrated from the Prophet (‘alayhi salam) that he said to al-Mughira bin Shu‘ba “If you look at her it may be more appropriate to enrich your marriage.” (translation of this hadith is a bit rough)
As for looking at the feet: Is it forbidden? It is mentioned in Kitab al-Istihsan that it is ‘awra as regards looking, but it is not ‘awra in prayer. In al-Ziyadat an indication is mentioned that it is not ‘awra as regards the prayer.
But Ibn Shuja‘ mentioned from al-Hasan from Abu Hanifa that they are not ‘awra. In terms of looking they are like the face and hands.
Maliki Madhhab
Malik said in the Mudawwana regarding zihar (vol.3, pp.82-83):
قلت: أرأيت المرأة إذا ظاهر منها زوجها هل يجب عليها أن تمنعه نفسها؟ قال: قال مالك: نعم، تمنعه نفسها قال: ولا يصلح له أن ينظر إلى شعرها ولا إلى صدرها. قال: فقلت لمالك أفينظر إلى وجهها، فقال: نعم وقد ينظر غيره أيضا إلى وجهها.
I (Sahnun) said: What do you see regarding a woman whose husband has done zihar of her. Does she deny herself to him? He (Ibn al-Qasim) said: Malik said: Yes, she denies herself to him. He also said: And he should not look at her hair and at her chest. He (Ibn al-Qasim) said: So I said to Malik: May he look at her face? He said: Yes, and someone else can also look at her face.
And in the ‘Utbiyya (with Ibn Rushd’s commentary al-Bayan wa’l-Tahsil, vol. 4, p.304):
وسئل مالك عن الرجل يريد تزويج المرأة فيريد أن يغتفلها النظر إما من الكوة ونحوها لينظر إلى جمالها ، قال : ليدخل عليها بإذن ، قال : قلت لا يريد ذلك وإنما يريد أن يغتفلها فقال : ما سمعت فيه شيئا ، فقيل إن قوماً يحدثون في ذلك بأحاديث فقال : وما ذلك ؟ قلت له يقولون إن له ذلك ، قال وما سمعت وإني لأكره ذلك .
Malik was asked about a man who wants to marry a woman and he wants to look at her without her knowing, from a small window or something similar to look at her beauty. He (Malik) said: He should go and see her with permission. I (Talq bin Habib) said: He doesn’t want that. All he wants is to look at her without her knowing. He (Malik) said: I haven’t heard anything about it. Someone said: Some people narrate hadith about it. He said: And what is it? I (Talq) said: They say he can do that. He said: I haven’t heard and I dislike that.
Ibn Habib (who studied with a lot of Malik’s students) said regarding what a woman has to wear during the prayer (Nawadir, vol. 1, p.205):
و لا يَظْهَر منها غيرُ دَوْرِ الوَجْهِ و الكَفَّيْنِ ، و كلُّ ما غَطَّتْ به رأسها فهو خِمارٌ ، و لو كان تحتَ القميص مِئْزَرٌ فهو أَبْلَغُ ، و إلاَّ فَيُجْزِئُهَا ، و لا يَبْدُو منها لغيرِ ذَوِي مَحْرَمٍ غيرَ ما يَبْدُو فِي الصَّلاَةِ
Nothing should be apparent from her except her face and hands. Everything that covers her head is khimar. And if below the qamis she wears a mi’zar it is better, and if not it’s still valid. And she should not show to those who aren’t mahrams anything other than what is shown during the prayer.
Shafi'i Madhhab
al-Shafi‘i said in al-Umm (vol. 1, p.89):
وَكُلُّ الْمَرْأَةِ عَوْرَةٌ إلَّا كَفَّيْهَا وَوَجْهَهَا وَظَهْرَ قَدَمَيْهَا عَوْرَةٌ
All the woman is ‘awra except for her hands and face. And the bottom of her feet are ‘awra.
al-Muzani (student of al-Shafi'i, d.264h) in Mukhtasar al-Muzani fi furu' al-Shafi'iya (p.219):
Allah the exalted said: "They do not show their adornment (zina) except that which is apparent". He said: The face and hands.
al-Rafi'i (d.623h) Fath al-'Aziz sharh al-Wajiz (vol.4, p.88):
As for the woman, if she is a freewoman, all of her body is 'awra except for her face and hands because of His statement: "They do not show their adornment (zina) except that which is apparent". The commentators of Qur'an said it is the face and hands. What is meant is not just the palms. Rather the front and back of both arms up to the elbow are both excluded from the 'awra.
al-Nawawi (d.676h) in Rawdat al-Talibin (p.1170 or vol.2, p.455):
The man looking at the woman: It is forbidden to look at her 'awra, and to her face and hands if he fears fitna. If he does not fear fitna there are two views: Most the associates (i.e. the Shafi'ies), specially the earlier ones, say it is not forbidden because of the saying of Allah the exalted: "They do not show their adornment (zina) except that which is apparent" and this is understood to mean the face and hands. But it is disliked, as stated by Shaykh Abu Hamid [al-Ghazali] and others. The second [view]: it is forbidden. Al-Istakhiri and Abu Ali al-Tabari stated it, and Shaykh Abu Muhammad and al-Imam [al-Juwayni?] preferred it. The author of al-Muhadhdhab (al-Shirazi) and al-Rawayani declared it certain.
Hanbali Madhhab & ibn Taymiyyah
al-Insaf by al-Mardawi on the woman’s ‘awra (vol.1, pp.195-196):
قوله: "والحرة كلها عورة حتى ظفرها وشعرها إلا الوجه".
الصحيح من المذهب: أن الوجه ليس بعورة وعليه الأصحاب وحكاه القاضي إجماعا وعنه الوجه عورة أيضا قال الزركشي أطلق الإمام أحمد القول بأن جميعها عورة وهو محمول على ما عدا الوجه أو على غير الصلاة انتهى وقال بعضهم الوجه عورة وإنما كشف في الصلاة للحاجة قال الشيخ تقي الدين والتحقيق أنه ليس بعورة في الصلاة وهو عورة في باب النظر إذا لم يجز النظر إليه انتهى.
قوله: "وفي الكفين روايتان".
وأطلقهما في الجامع الصغير والهداية والمبهج والفصول والتذكرة له والمذهب ومسبوك الذهب والمستوعب والكافي والهادي والخلاصة والتلخيص والبلغة والمحرر والشرح وابن تميم والفائق وابن عبيدان والزركشي والمذهب الأحمد والحاوي الصغير"
إحداهما: هما عورة وهي المذهب عليه الجمهور قال في الفروع اختارها الأكثر قال الزركشي هي اختيار القاضي في التعليق قال وهو ظاهر كلام أحمد وجزم به الخرقي وفي المنور والمنتخب والطريق الأقرب وقدمه في الإيضاح والرعاية والنظم وتجريد العناية وإدراك الغاية والفروع.
والرواية الثانية: ليستا بعورة جزم به في العمدة والإفادات والوجيز والنهاية والنظم واختارها المجد في شرحه وصاحب مجمع البحرين: وابن منجا وابن عبيدان وابن عبدوس في تذكرته والشيخ تقي الدين.
قلت: وهو الصواب وقدمه في الحاوي الكبير وابن رزين في شرحه وصححه شيخنا في تصحيح المحرر.
تنبيهان: أحدهما: صرح المصنف أن ما عدا الوجه والكفين عورة وهو صحيح وهو المذهب وعليه الأصحاب وحكاه ابن المنذر إجماعا في الخمار واختار الشيخ تقي الدين أن القدمين ليسا بعورة أيضا.
قلت: وهو الصواب.
قوله: "والحرة كلها عورة حتى ظفرها وشعرها إلا الوجه".
الصحيح من المذهب: أن الوجه ليس بعورة وعليه الأصحاب وحكاه القاضي إجماعا وعنه الوجه عورة أيضا قال الزركشي أطلق الإمام أحمد القول بأن جميعها عورة وهو محمول على ما عدا الوجه أو على غير الصلاة انتهى وقال بعضهم الوجه عورة وإنما كشف في الصلاة للحاجة قال الشيخ تقي الدين والتحقيق أنه ليس بعورة في الصلاة وهو عورة في باب النظر إذا لم يجز النظر إليه انتهى.
قوله: "وفي الكفين روايتان".
وأطلقهما في الجامع الصغير والهداية والمبهج والفصول والتذكرة له والمذهب ومسبوك الذهب والمستوعب والكافي والهادي والخلاصة والتلخيص والبلغة والمحرر والشرح وابن تميم والفائق وابن عبيدان والزركشي والمذهب الأحمد والحاوي الصغير"
إحداهما: هما عورة وهي المذهب عليه الجمهور قال في الفروع اختارها الأكثر قال الزركشي هي اختيار القاضي في التعليق قال وهو ظاهر كلام أحمد وجزم به الخرقي وفي المنور والمنتخب والطريق الأقرب وقدمه في الإيضاح والرعاية والنظم وتجريد العناية وإدراك الغاية والفروع.
والرواية الثانية: ليستا بعورة جزم به في العمدة والإفادات والوجيز والنهاية والنظم واختارها المجد في شرحه وصاحب مجمع البحرين: وابن منجا وابن عبيدان وابن عبدوس في تذكرته والشيخ تقي الدين.
قلت: وهو الصواب وقدمه في الحاوي الكبير وابن رزين في شرحه وصححه شيخنا في تصحيح المحرر.
تنبيهان
أحدهما: صرح المصنف أن ما عدا الوجه والكفين عورة وهو صحيح وهو المذهب وعليه الأصحاب وحكاه ابن المنذر إجماعا في الخمار واختار الشيخ تقي الدين أن القدمين ليسا بعورة أيضا.
قلت: وهو الصواب.
The statement: The free woman is ‘awra, even her nails and her hair, except the face.
The correct opinion in the madhhab is that the face isn’t ‘awra, and the ashab are upon this. And the Qadi (Abu Ya‘la) narrated consensus on it. And he also narrates that the face is ‘awra.
Al-Zarkashi said: Imam Ahmad said unrestrictedly that all of her is ‘awra, and it is taken to mean except the face, or outside of the prayer.
Some said: The face is ‘awra and it is only uncovered in the prayer due to necessity.
Shaykh Taqi al-Din (Ibn Taymiyya) said: The tahqiq is that it is not ‘awra in the prayer but it is ‘awra in terms of looking because it is not allowed to look at it.
The statement: There are two narrations regarding the hands.
They (the two narrations) are mentioned in al-Jami al-kabir, al-Hidaya, al-Mubhij, al-Fusul, al-Tadhkira of it, al-Madhhab, Masbuk al-dhahab, al-Mustaw‘ib, al-Kafi, al-Hadi, al-Khulasa, al-Talkhis, al-Bulgha, al-Muharrar, al-Sharh, Ibn Tamim, al-Fa’iq, Ibn ‘Ubaydan, al-Zarkashi, al-Madhhab al-ahmad and al-Hawi al-saghir.
One of the two (narrations): It is ‘awra, and it is the madhhab and the view of the majority.
He (Ibn Muflih) said in al-Furu‘: The majority selected it. He then said: It is the apparent meaning of what Ahmad said, and al-Khiraqi declared it as certain, as it is in al-Munawwar and al-Muntakhab. And it was given precedence in al-Idah, al-Ri‘aya, al-Nazm, Tajrid al-‘inaya, Idrak al-ghaya and al-Furu‘.
The second narration: They are not ‘awra. Declared as certain in al-‘Umda, al-Ifadat, al-Wajiz, al-Nihaya and al-Nazm. Al-Majd (Ibn Taymiyya’s granddad) chose it in his Sharh, as did the author of Majma‘ al-bahrayn, Ibn Munajja, Ibn ‘Ubaydan, Ibn ‘Abdus in his Tadhkira and Shaykh Taqi al-Din.
I say: It is correct, he gave it precedence in al-Hawi al-kabir, as did Ibn Zurayn in his Sharh and our Shaykh confirmed it as sound in his checking of al-Muharrar.
Two points: The author clearly stated: Anything other than the face and hands is ‘awra, and it is sound, and it is the madhhab and the ashab are upon that. And Ibn al-Mundhir claimed it is consensus as regards the khimar. And Shaykh Taqi al-Din chose that the feet are also not ‘awra.
I said: And it is correct.
What one is allowed to look at in a woman (vol. 2, p.1341):
فلا يجوز له النظر إلى الأجنبية قصدا وهو صحيح وهو المذهب.
وجوز جماعة من الأصحاب نظر الرجل من الحرة الأجنبية إلى ما ليس بعورة صلاة.
وجزم به في المستوعب في آدابه وذكره الشيخ تقي الدين رواية.
قال القاضي المحرم ما عدا الوجه والكفين.
وصرح القاضي في الجامع أنه لا يجوز النظر إلى المرأة الأجنبية لغير حاجة.
ثم قال النظر إلى العورة محرم وإلى غير العورة مكروه.
وهكذا ذكر ابن عقيل وأبو الحسين.
وقال أبو الخطاب لا يجوز النظر لغير من ذكرنا إلا أن القاضي أطلق هذه العبارة وحكى الكراهة في غير العورة.
قال الشيخ تقي الدين رحمه الله هل يحرم النظر إلى وجه الأجنبية لغير حاجة رواية عن الإمام أحمد يكره ولا يحرم.
وقال ابن عقيل لا يحرم النظر إلى وجه الأجنبية إذا أمن الفتنة انتهى.
قلت وهذا الذي لا يسع الناس غيره خصوصا للجيران والأقارب غير المحارم الذين نشأ بينهم وهو مذهب الشافعي.
It is not permissible for him to look at a non-mahram woman (ajnabiya) on purpose. It is sound and it is the madhhab. And a group of the madhhab scholars allowed the man to see of the free ajnabiya what is not ‘awra in the prayer. He declared it as certain in al-Mustaw‘ib in the section on adab and Taqi al-Din mentioned it as a narration (from Ahmad).
The Qadi said: What is forbidden is other than the face and hands. The Qadi said in al-Jami‘: It is not permissible to look at an ajnabiya woman except when necessary. Then he said: Looking at the ‘awra is forbidden, and other than the ‘awra is disliked (makruh). And this is what was mentioned by Ibn ‘Aqil and Abu ’l-Husayn. Abu ’l-Khattab said: It is not permissible to look at other than those we mentioned, except that the Qadi used the phrase unrestrictedly and mentioned that it is disliked [to look at] other than the ‘awra.
Shaykh Taqi al-Din (rahimahullah) said: Is it forbidden to look at the face of the ajnabiya without necessity? It is narrated from Imam Ahmad that it’s disliked but it is not forbidden. Ibn ‘Aqil said: It is not forbidden to look at the face of an ajnabiya if he does not fear fitna.
I said: This is what people cannot help doing, specially with neighbours and relatives one has grown up with. And it is the madhhab of al-Shafi‘i
Wassalaam Aleikum warahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.
lease keep in mind that I am saying this even under close supervision,and that the information shared is to be kept strictly confidential.