By Ustadh Abdus Shakur Brooks
The purpose of this article is to document that the position of the Maliki school is:
- It is obligatory for a female to cover her face from a non-Muslim male (whether there is fitnah or not)
- It is obligatory for a female to cover her face in front of a Muslim male (when there is possible fear of fitnah which has been the case now for centuries according to the scholars of the school) .
Those who insist on rejecting that these are established positions ignore what is written repeatedly in the major works of the school such as the commentaries of al-Risalah and Mukhtasar Khalil in which the scholars mention this ruling explicitly.
Some of those who reject, put forth the false argument “that since the face is not awrah, then covering it is not obligatory”. What they present is the false idea that the awrah is the determining factor in these two issues which is not the case.
The upshot of the matter is that even though the scholars differed concerning whether or not her face is awrah in these two cases, they all agreed that covering the face is obligatory and uncovering is haram.
Shaykh Dardir in his famous commentary Al-Sharh Al-Kabir which is renowned for its reliability for fatwa both in the Magrib and in the East says:
فإذا خيف من أمة فنتة وجب سترها ما عدا العورة لخوف الفتنة لا لكونه عورة و كذا يقال في نظيره كستر وجه الحرة ويديه
If there is a fear/possibility of fitnah from a slave women [whose awrah is only what is between her knees and her navel] it is obligatory for her to cover everything else [ such as the head arms and legs] along with her awrah due to of the fear/possibility of fitnah; not because it is awrah. And likewise [in ruling] the same thing is said [that is ,the obligation of covering is because of fitnah; not because of awrah] in regards to a free women covering her face and hands.
Shaykh Dardir also said in his Aqrab al-Masalik:
و عورة الحرة (مع) رجل (أجنبي) منها, أي ليس بمحرم لها, جميع البدن (غير الوجه والكفين), وأما هما, فليس بعورة وإن وجب عليها سترهما لخوف الفتنة.
The awrah of a free woman with respect to a strange man/non-mahram is all of her body with the exception of her face and hands. As for both of them [the hands and the face] they are not awrah even though it is obligatory on her to cover them due to fear/possibility of fitnah.
Shaikh al-A’dawi mentions in his marginal commentary on Shaykh al-Khurashi’s commentary on Mukhtasar Khalil that :
لا يجوز للحرة المسلمة أن تبدى شيأ من جسدها ولو وجها ويدأ الكافر وإن لم يكن عورة
It is not permissible for a free Muslim woman to show anything of her body, whether it face or hands, to a non-Muslim male even if they are not considered awrah.
Shaikh al-A’dawi in his marginal commentary on al-Zurqani’s commentary on al-Izziyah says:
قوله فان عورتها معه جميع جسدها الخ اعتمد شيخنا الصغير ان الوجه والكفين ليساعورة بالنظرلكافر و ان حرم الكشف اذلايلزم من كونهما ليسا بعورة ان لا يكون الكشف حراما بل هو حرام فتدبر
As for his [that is, Zurqani's] saying “verily her awrah in regards to him [that is, a non-Muslim male] is her entire body even here hands and face”, our shaikh al-Sagir opted for the opinion that the face and the hands are not considered awrah in regards to what the non-Muslim male can look at even though uncovering is still haram; since just because they are not awrah does not necessitate that uncovering them is not haram, indeed it is haram, so reflect!.
Shaikh al-Adawi explicitly states that it is haram for a woman to uncover her face in front of a non-Muslim male, and that although it is haram for her to uncover her face in front of him, it does not necessitate that the rule of her awrah changes. On the contrary Zurqani states that his shakyh Al-Sagir opted for the opinion that her entire body was awrah in respects to a non-Muslim male.
In spite of that they all agree that it is haram to uncover them, that is why al-A’dawi said “just because they are not awrah does not necessitate that uncovering them is not haram, indeed it is haram, so reflect!”.
Shaykh Abi Al-Azhari in his commentary on Mukhtasar Khalil called Jawahir al-Iklil:
وأما الأجنبي الكافر, فجميع جسدها حتى وجهها وكفيها عورة بالنسبة له
As for a non-muslim who is not a mahram, then her entire body even her hands and face are awrah in regards to him.
Shaykh Dardir says in his Al-Sharh Al-Kabir during his discussion on awrah:
أما مع أجنبي كافر فجميع جسدها حتى الوجه بالكفين
As in the case with an non-mahram who is not Muslim, then all of her body including her hands and face [are awrah].
Shaikh al-Zurqaani (1099 A.H) mentioned in his commentary on al-Izziyyah:
قولي مسلم احترازا من كافر غير عبدها فان عورتها معه جميع جسدها حتى الوجه والكفين
My saying previously “Muslim” is to distinguish from a non-Muslim who is not her slave, for verily her awrah with him [that is a non-Muslim male] is her entire body even her hands and face.
The purpose and point is not so much about “telling sisters to cover their face right now!” but rather the point is that those who pretend to transmit the Maliki school mislead and confuse people simply because they “don’t feel” that the position is “suitable” and so they tell the people who seek to know the truth of the matter something else that is not true according to the Maliki school.
A sound person and true guide tells the people the truth on any matter, because giving fatwa in matters pertaining to the school is a trust of transmission. Also he would advice them on how to deal with the reality of the situation in times such as today by helping them to understand that WE are ALL weak in fulfilling the full package of the shari’ah, but encouraging them to do the best they can in their situation, embedding in their hearts to admire the highest standard even though they can’t reach it, and being humble and seeking Allah’s forgiveness for those things that they can’t do. In this way maybe Allah will forgive us our sins for admiring what we ourselves can not do, or give us the ability to reach that level one day.
But those who insist on changing the rules without any sound basis to suite what they “desire” to be correct only mislead themselves and those who follow them. This is a sign of the corruption of the deen and exactly why the mid-century scholars of the school prohibited ruling by other than the mashoor and rajih opionions of the school because they began to witness the lack of integrity when giving a fatwa.
Al-Maziri who is one of the Mujtahids in fatwa, whom Khalil depended upon in his Mukhtasar said:
ولست ممن يحمل الناس على غير المعروف المشهور من مذهب مالك وأصحابه؛ لأن الورع قل، بل كاد يعدم، والتحفظ على الدينات كذلك، وكثرت الشهوات، وكثر من يدعى العلم ويتجاسر على الفقوى فيه
“I am not one of those who give people fatwa other than what is known to be the mashoor opinion in Malik’s madhhab and that of his companions. That is because piety and god-fearfulness has deteriorated, indeed almost absolutely gone and likewise the preservation of religious practice .Vain desires are soaring; numerous are those who claim to be knowledgeable and give bold and reckless fatwa.”
If that was the case then, what do you think about our times?