Is the face veil (Niqab) obligatory for Muslim women?
Quran
Hadith
Islamic Text
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
In the Name of Allah Most Merciful Most Kind
Short Answer
Covering the face is not absolutely compulsory because the face of a woman is not Awrah. However, some Hanafi scholars did deem the face veil (Niqab) obligatory due to Fitnah (temptation). Therefore, in situations of Fitnah, it may be correct to say it is obligatory. Otherwise, it is not obligatory.
Explanation
فَقَامَتِ امْرَأَةٌ مِنْ سِطَةِ النِّسَاءِ سَفْعَاءُ الْخَدَّيْنِ، فَقَالَتْ: لِمَ؟ يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ قَالَ: لِأَنَّكُنَّ تُكْثِرْنَ الشَّكَاةَ، وَتَكْفُرْنَ الْعَشِيرَ
Then a dark cheeked woman stood up from amongst the women. She said, why? O Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He ﷺ said: Because you complain excessively and are ungrateful to your spouse. (Sahih Muslim 885 – 4).
Many scholars deem the face veil (Niqab) obligatory. Others feel that it is not an obligation (Fard or Wajib), since the face is not Awrah. The Awrah of a person refers to the parts of the body that must remain covered. Therefore, the argument of those who consider it obligatory to wear Niqab relates to Fitnah not Awrah.
The Hadith above makes it clear that women did not cover their faces in the time of the blessed Prophet ﷺ. However, one may also find narrations that assert that they did cover their faces. Many use this as evidence to support the fact that it was not obligatory to cover the face. Had it been obligatory then all women would have covered the face.
The Holy Quran
The Holy Quran does not directly address the issue of the face veil (Niqab) being obligatory. But there are verses of the Holy Quran that are used by both sides to establish their position. The following verse, together with relevant commentaries seems to be persuasive evidence for those who do not consider the Niqab compulsory.
وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا
And say to the believing women that they must lower their gaze and protect themselves. And not reveal their adornment except that which is apparent. (Surah al-Nur, 3).
عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: {وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا} [النور: 31] قَالَ: وَجْهُهَا، وَكَفُّهَا
Regarding the verse And not reveal their adornment except that which is apparent, Abdullah bin Abbas said: her face and palms. (Musanaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 17018).
In the narration above, the verse is understood to permit the unveiling of the face and Hands. This Tafseer (commentary) is attributed to one of the greatest scholars of the Sahabah, Sayidina Abdullah bin Abbas. He is also one of the greatest Tafseer scholars in our history.
This Tafseer manifestly opposes the position of those who consider the face veil (Niqab) obligatory. Since it clearly permits a Muslim woman to unveil her face and hands. Many leading Hanafi Imams quoted the above Tafseer in their own works.
Hanafi Imams
وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا. 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. فإن كان ذلك فليس ينبغي له أن ينظر إليه. (كتاب الأَصْل)
And say to the believing women that they must lower their gaze and protect themselves. And not reveal their adornment except that which is apparent. The commentators explained that what is apparent means antimony (Kohl) and a ring. Kohl is an adornment of the face, and a ring is an adornment of the hand, so these two adornments are permitted. There is no harm in him looking at her face and hands, unless he is only looking out of desire for her. If that is the case, then it is not appropriate for him to look. (Imam Muhammad bin Hasan al-Shaybani 189H, Kitab al-Asl).
وَلا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا. [النور: 31]. وَالْمُرَادُ مِنْ الزِّينَةِ مَوَاضِعُهَا وَمَوَاضِعُ الزِّينَةِ الظَّاهِرَةِ الْوَجْهُ وَالْكَفَّانِ فَالْكُحْلُ زِينَةُ الْوَجْهِ وَالْخَاتَمُ زِينَةُ الْكَفِّ وَلِأَنَّهَا تَحْتَاجُ إلَى الْبَيْعِ وَالشِّرَاءِ وَالْأَخْذِ وَالْعَطَاءِ وَلَا يُمْكِنُهَا ذَلِكَ عَادَةً إلَّا بِكَشْفِ الْوَجْهِ وَالْكَفَّيْنِ فَيَحِلُّ لَهَا الْكَشْفُ وَهَذَا قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ – وَرَوَى الْحَسَنُ عَنْ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ رَحِمَهُمَا اللَّهُ أَنَّهُ يَحِلُّ النَّظَرُ إلَى الْقَدَمَيْنِ أَيْضًا. (بدائع الصنائع في ترتيب الشرائع)
And not reveal their adornment except that which is apparent. (Surah al-Nur, 31). The meaning of adornment is the place of it. The place of apparent adornment is the face and palms. Antimony is the adornment of the face, and a ring is the adornment of the hand. Also, because she needs to buy, sell, give and take, that is not generally possible except by revealing the face and palms.
Therefore, unveiling is permissible for her. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, (May Allah Most High be pleased with him). And al-Hasan narrated from Abu Hanifah (May Allah Most High have mercy upon him) that looking at the feet is permitted too. (Imam Abu Bakr bin Masud al-Kaasaani 587H, Badai al-Sanai).
وَلا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا. [النور: 31]. قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: الْكُحْلُ وَالْخَاتَمُ. وَمِنْ ضَرُورَةِ إِبْدَاءِ الزِّينَةِ إِبْدَاءُ مَوْضِعِهَا، فَالْكُحْلُ زِينَةُ الْوَجْهِ، وَالْخَاتَمُ زِينَةُ الْكَفِّ، وَلِأَنَّهَا تَحْتَاجُ إِلَى كَشْفِ ذَلِكَ فِي الْمُعَامَلَاتِ فَكَانَ فِيهِ ضَرُورَةٌ. (الاختيار لتعليل المختار)
And not reveal their adornment except that which is apparent. (Surah al-Nur, 31). Ibn Abbas said, antimony and a ring. Unveiling adornment necessitates unveiling its location. Kohl (antimony) is the adornment of the face, and the ring is the adornment of the hand. Also, she needs to unveil them in transactions. Thus, it is a necessity. (Imam Abu al-Fadl al-Mowsili 683H, al-Ikhtiyaar).
إِلاَّ مَا ظَهَرَ منها. إلا ما جرت العادة والجبلة على ما جرت وهو الوجه والكفان والقدمان ففي سترها حرج بين. (تفسير النسفي)
Except that which is apparent. Except what is customary and natural to unveil. Which is the face, palms, and feet. There is a manifest hardship in covering them. (Imam Abu al-Barakaat al-Nasafi 710H, Madarik al-Tanzeel).
Later scholars
Despite the clarity provided by early Hanafi Imams, significant later scholars did consider the face veil (Niqab) obligatory for a Muslim woman. This is a little surprising because the normal role of later scholars is to present the positions of earlier Imams. Usually, they only present their own views when earlier scholars have not provided an opinion.
However, in rare cases later scholars will oppose earlier Imams. This is often done when they believe that a change in circumstance requires a change in the Fatwa. In the case of the face veil being an obligation, this certainly does seem to be the case.
قَالَ مَشَايِخُنَا تُمْنَعُ الْمَرْأَةُ الشَّابَّةُ مِنْ كَشْفِ وَجْهِهَا بَيْنَ الرِّجَالِ فِي زَمَانِنَا لِلْفِتْنَةِ. (البحر الرائق شرح كنز الدقائق)
Our Shaykhs said that a young woman is forbidden from revealing her face in the presence of men in our time. This is due to Fitnah (temptation). (Imam Zayn al-Deen bin Nujaym, al-Bahr al-Raiq).
Imam Ibn Nujaym is not alone in the stance he has taken. Numerous later scholars agreed. They also considered the face veil (Niqab) obligatory due to increased Fitnah in their societies. Such positions are allowable in the Hanafi framework. Furthermore, scholars are required to review legal positions in light of evidence and circumstance.
However, there is a major concern with this position. Namely, earlier scholars raised the issue of Fitnah and Shahwah, yet they still did not consider the Niqab to be mandatory. This being the case, it makes it difficult for later scholars to say Fitnah and Shahwah cause the face veil to become Fard.
Earlier scholars on Fitnah
لَا شَكَّ أَنَّهُ يُبَاحُ النَّظَرُ إلَى ثِيَابِهَا وَلَا يُعْتَبَرُ خَوْفُ الْفِتْنَةِ فِي ذَلِكَ فَكَذَلِكَ إلَى وَجْهِهَا وَكَفِّهَا وَرَوَى الْحَسَنُ بْنُ زِيَادٍ عَنْ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ أَنَّهُ يُبَاحُ النَّظَرُ إلَى قَدَمِهَا أَيْضًا وَهَكَذَا ذَكَرَ الطَّحَاوِيُّ لِأَنَّهَا كَمَا تُبْتَلَى بِإِبْدَاءِ وَجْهِهَا فِي الْمُعَامَلَةِ مَعَ الرِّجَالِ وَبِإِبْدَاءِ كَفِّهَا فِي الْأَخْذِ وَالْإِعْطَاءِ تُبْتَلَى بِإِبْدَاءِ قَدَمَيْهَا. (المبسوط)
There is no doubt that it is permissible to look at her clothes, and the fear of Fitnah (temptation) is not considered in that. Likewise, her face and palms. Al-Hasan bin Ziyad narrated from Abu Hanifah that it is permissible to look at her feet too. This was also mentioned by al-Tahaawi. Since she is necessitated to unveil her face in transactions with men, and her palms when giving or taking. She is also necessitated to uncover her feet too. (Imam Abu Sahl al-Sarakhsi 483H, al-Mabsoot).
As we see in the Nass (text) above, significant early Imams of the Hanafi Madhab did not consider the fear of Fitnah to be a valid reason to oblige the face veil (Niqab). This significantly undermines the argument of later Hanafis who deem the face veil (Niqab) obligatory due to Fitnah and Shahwah (desire).
وَرَوَى الْحَسَنُ عَنْ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ أَنَّهُ يُبَاحُ ذَلِكَ لِأَنَّ الْمَرْأَةَ تَضْطَرُّ إلَى الْمَشْيِ فَيَبْدُو قَدَمُهَا فَصَارَ كَالْكَفِّ وَلِأَنَّ الْوَجْهَ يُشْتَهَى وَالْقَدَمُ لَا يُشْتَهَى فَإِذَا جَازَ النَّظَرُ إلَى وَجْهِهَا فَقَدَمُهَا أَوْلَى. (الجوهرة النيرة)
Al-Hasan narrated on the authority of Abu Hanifah that this is permissible. Since a woman is forced to walk and her feet become exposed. So, it is like the palm. Also, the face is desired (Shahwah) and the foot is not desired. Therefore, if it is permissible to look at her face, then her foot is certainly permitted. (Imam Abu Bakr bin Ali al-Hadadi 800H, al-Jowharah).
Conclusion
It is clear from the discussion above that the face of a woman is not Awrah. Therefore, Niqab is not automatically or intrinsically mandatory. This is why many early Hanafi Imams said that women do not have to cover their faces. However, some later Hanafi scholars did deem the face veil (Niqab) obligatory. They held this position due to the prevalence of Fitnah.
Undoubtedly, this position would necessitate a discussion regarding the definition of Fitnah in this context. However, prior to such a discussion, it is important to recognise that some early Hanafi Imams permitted the unveiling of the face despite Fitnah. This therefore undermines the position of these later scholars.
Another concern for those who hold the face veil to be mandatory is the claim that there is Ijma (scholarly consensus) upon it not being mandatory. Despite that, such claims need to be scrutinised. This is because many claims of Ijma are not upheld upon scrutiny.
There is so much more to discuss. But due to fear of prolonging this answer too much, I will address related issues in other answers. In conclusion, those Hanafis who say the Niqab is not Wajib or Fard have clear evidence from Quran, Hadith and the texts (Nusoos) of the Madhab to support their position. As for those who deem it obligatory, they need to define Fitnah in this context and establish its prevalence.
And Allah Most High Knows Best.
–Answered by Shaykh Noorud-deen Rashid (12.06.24)