Q. Why is there a difference among scholars about the hijab requirements, with some saying that a woman need not cover her face and hands while others say that a woman commits a grave sin if she does not cover these parts of her body? Are the first group of contemporary thought, while the others are extremist? Why is it that we are required to show our faces and hands in the pilgrimage and the Umrah? Kindly explain.
W. Khan
A. Scholars may differ on any question, depending on their understanding of texts. Thus, a text in the Qur’an may be understood in more than one way. What makes a particular way more acceptable is the existence of supporting evidence in the Hadith. But then you have to look at the Hadith in its context. If a scholar knows a Hadith while another scholar is unaware of it, this may lead to divergent opinions. If we take a simple example: the Shafie school of Fiqh considers it obligatory to follow the right order when washing the parts of the body that are required to be washed in ablution. The right order is that in which they are mentioned in the Qur’an. This school relies on the Hadith which quotes the Prophet as saying: “Start with what is mentioned first by God.” The Hanafi school of Fiqh does not consider the right order obligatory. It is clear that this Hadith was not known to its founder scholars, or was rated as lacking in authenticity.
With regard to the question of women’s dress code, the difference between those who insist on covering the face and hands and those that say this is not required is the result of their different understanding of the texts. It is not a matter of being modern or extreme. It is merely a question of understanding, encouraged or supported by social background. For example, you find that the view that women must cover their faces and hands prevails in Saudi Arabia and Yemen much more widely than you find it in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, or in North Africa.
On the other hand, there is no question of the view that women’s faces and hands need not be covered is influenced by contemporary thought. You find this view expressed in the major works of all schools of Fiqh. Indeed, it is the standard view in practically all schools.
I am afraid the more restrictive view reflects rigidity in understanding certain texts. Such rigidity is due to the lack of a wider vision that takes all texts and other evidence into consideration. Take for example the Qur’anic verse which addresses the Prophet in person: “No other women shall henceforth be lawful to you, nor are you to replace any of them with other wives, even though their beauty should please you greatly.” (33: 52) This verse makes it clear to the Prophet that he is not allowed to have a new wife other than those he was married to. It means that it was revealed very late in the Prophet’s life. Yet it says to him “even though their beauty should please you greatly.” How could the Prophet have found a woman’s beauty pleasing if she had her face and hands covered, in addition to covering the rest of her body? This verse is not directly related to the question of women’s dress, which explains why it is seldom quoted in this context. But it clearly states something about the way Muslim women appeared at the time of the Prophet.
Differences on women’s jewelry
Q. You have stated several times that women’s jewelry are exempt from zakah. Yet I have come across three Hadiths which are clear in making such zakah obligatory. Could you please tell me what is the basis of the opposite view.
Nishat, Dammam
A. Yes, these three Hadiths are often quoted in support of the view that women’s jewelry are liable to zakah. They are given in similar wording. One of them is reported by Asmaa bint Yazeed who says: “I went with my maternal aunt to the Prophet, and we were wearing gold bracelets. The Prophet asked us if we gave zakah for them, and we answered in the negative. He said: “Do you not fear that God should give you bracelets of fire? Give zakah for it.” (Related by Ahmad). Another is reported by Aishah: “The Prophet came to my room and found me wearing silver rings. He asked: ‘What is this, Aishah?’ I said: ‘I have obtained them to adorn myself for your sake.’ He said: ‘Do you pay its zakah?’ I said that I did not. He said: ‘This is sufficient for a share of fire.’” (Related by Abu Dawood, Al-Daraqutni and Al-Bayhaqi). It should be noted that none of the three Hadiths is related in the authentic collections of Malik, Al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Nevertheless, the Sahfie, Maliki and Hanbali schools of Fiqh give the ruling I have often stated that women jewelry is exempt from zakah. The basis is similarly valid. Al-Bayhaqi reports: “Jabir ibn Abdullah was asked whether women’s jewelry is liable to zakah, and he said that it is not. He was asked, ‘even if its value is a thousand dinars?’ He said: ‘and even more.’” Al-Bayhaqi also reports that Asma’ bint Abu Bakr gave her daughters gold jewelry worth 50 000 and did not pay zakah for it. In Al-Muwatta’, which is rated as equal in authenticity to Al-Bukhari and Muslim, it is reported that Aishah was looking after her nieces, who were orphans, and they had jewelry but she did not pay zakah for it. Similarly, Abdullah ibn Umar gave his daughters and servants gold jewelry and paid no zakah for it.
All these reports show the basis for the ruling I have repeatedly published. In addition I may say that a main principle in zakah is that it is liable on property that is, by its nature, liable to growth. Needless to say, women’s jewelry is not liable in this way. Hence, it is not subject to zakah.