1. Surah An-Nur (24:31) – The Command for Modesty Before Mehrams:
“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not to display their adornment except what [ordinarily] appears thereof and to draw their veils (khumur) over their bosoms (juyub). And not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, their husband’s sons, their brothers or their brother’s sons, or their sister’s sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex…”
Meaning & Interpretation: This verse mandates the Khimar – understood as the Dupatta or modern day Hijab or head covering drawn over the bosom. Critically, it explicitly lists specific mehram males (fathers, sons, brothers, nephews, etc.) as exceptions before whom lesser adornment is permissible. This proves the preceding command – covering head and bosom with the Dupatta – applies IN THE PRESENCE OF THESE VERY MEHRAMS within the domestic sphere. It defines modest conduct inside the home among close family. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qurtubi). Anas Bin Malik (RA) clarified: “What ordinarily appears” refers to kohl and rings – NOT face or hands (Tafsīr Ibn Abī Ḥātim Vol. 8, p. 2645, Hadith 13744, Asad al-Tayyib, ed 1997).
2. Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59) – The Command for Protection Before Non-Mehrams:
“O Prophet! Tell your wives, your daughters, and the believing women to draw their outer garments (jalābīb) over themselves. That is more suitable that they will be recognized [as free, believing women] and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.”
Meaning & Interpretation: Revealed in response to harassment, this verse mandates a distinct outer garment – the Jilbab, which is the Burqa or Abaya with Niqab – to be drawn over the entire person when in public or before non-mehrams. Its divine wisdom (“that they will be recognized and not be abused”) necessitates this comprehensive covering for distinction and protection. (Tafsir al-Tabari, Tafsir Ibn Kathir). When Allah revealed this Ayah, the Mothers of the Believers (Aisha, Umm Salamah) and Sahaba women immediately covered their faces (Bukhari 4750). They understood ‘draw your jalabib’ to mean full covering, including the face. Who understood the Qur’an better than those taught by the Prophet ﷺ himself? Their actions ARE the living Tafsir.
Dupatta and Burqa: Islamic Garments from Allah’s Command
– Dupatta/Hijab = Khimar (An-Nur 24:31): This is not a cultural shawl. It is the practical Islamic institution fulfilling the Qur’anic Khimar – a garment mandated by Allah for covering the head and bosom as an act of worship (Ibadah) before mehrams within the home. Its abandonment violates a clear command. The term ‘Hijab’ fundamentally means a barrier or veil (e.g., ‘Hijab of Allah is light’). In the context of Surah An-Nur (24:31), it manifests practically as the Dupatta or headscarf fulfilling the command of the Khimar. Hence at times we will use Hijab as a veil and at times we will use it as a modern clothing gear.
– Burqa/Abaya with Niqab = Jilbab (Al-Ahzab 33:59): The face veil (Niqab) and encompassing outer garment (Jilbab/Burqa/Abaya) are not cultural inventions. They are the practical Islamic Garments derived from the Sahaba’s unanimous implementation of ” draw their outer garments (jalābīb) over themselves.” To mean covering the entire body, including the face, for protection and distinction in public. They embody the Jilbab command. The description of Jilbab as mentioned by our Mother Sayyidah Umm Salamah (RA) matches exactly with Burqa/Abaya with Niqab – proving it is an Islamic Institution, not a cultural adaptation.
The Logical Imperative: Why An-Nur Has to Apply to Mehrams
The obligation of Surah An-Nur (24:31) before mehrams rests on four indisputable pillars. Firstly, the absence of alternative legislation: were this verse not to mandate khimār (head-bosom cover) before fathers/brothers, no Quranic or hadith evidence would regulate domestic modesty – a jurisprudential vacuum rejected by all schools, as Imam Al-Kāsānī (Hanafi) states: “The exception ‘except to their fathers…’ restricts the initial command, proving khimār’s obligation before them” (Badā’iʿ al-Ṣanā’iʿ 5/124). Secondly, theological consistency: Allah’s meticulous legislation (e.g., hunting laws that say trained dog hunt is allowed but untrained dog’s is not in 5:4) renders neglect of daughter-father modesty inconceivable – a point emphasized by Ibn Qudāmah (Hanbali): “Divine wisdom dictates laws for every sphere; how could homes be excluded?” (Al-Mughnī 7/487). Thirdly, implied prohibition: the command to cover inherently forbids uncovering before mehrams, with Ibn Ḥazm (Ẓāhirī) noting “The exception proves the primary audience is mehrams” (Al-Muḥallā 3/217), while Ibn Taymiyyah (Hanbali) cites Sahaba practice: “Would the Prophet’s wives casually uncover before relatives if permitted?” (Majmūʿ al-Fatāwá 22/118). Fourthly, grammatical inevitability: the exception clause (“except to fathers/sons…”) operates solely within the scope of the initial command – a rule affirmed by Al-Shāṭibī (Maliki): “Exempting mehrams specifies that ‘draw their khumur’ applies primarily to them” (Al-Muwāfaqāt 2/389). Thus, Allah’s order “draw their veils over their bosoms” (24:31) obligates dupatta/hijab before mehrams, as unanimously confirmed: Hanafis declare it “farḍ al-‘ayn (individual obligation) indoors” (Ibn ‘Ābidīn, Radd al-Muḥtār 1/406), Shafi’is call it “a shield for head and bosom” (Al-Ramlī, Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj 6/189), Hanbalis warn “abandoning it is sinful” (Al-Buhūtī, Kashshāf al-Qināʿ 5/34), and Malikis stress “the obligation stands, adjusted only for corruption contexts” (Al-Dasūqī, Ḥāshiyat al-Dasūqī 2/125). As Ibn al-Qayyim concludes: “Discarding the dupatta before one’s father exposes what Allah commanded veiled” (Zād al-Maʿād 5/394).
Allah’s Order is Explicit:
“And tell the believing women to […] draw their veils (khumur) over their bosoms (juyub)” (Qur’an 24:31).
This verse mandates the Dupatta, headscarf, or Hijab as a shield for head and bosom before mehrams. A daughter must never stand before her father or brother with uncovered hair or exposed chest. To discard this is to discard a verse of Allah.
The Position of the Four Schools of Juridpudence
- Surah An-Nūr (24:31): Hanafi, Shafi and Hanbali mandate the khimār (Dupatta/Hijab) as obligatory (farḍ) before mehrams based on the verse’s literal command (“draw their veils over their bosoms”) and the Sahaba’s consistent implementation (Imam Ibn Qudāmah – Hanbali, Al-Mughnī 7/487; Imam Al-Nawawī – Shafi, Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn 5/352; Imam Al-Kāsānī – Hanafi, Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ, 5/124). Maliki do hold a slightly different view that will be discussed in the paragraph coming up.
- Surah Al-Aḥzāb (33:59): All four schools affirm the jilbāb (Burqa/Abaya with Niqab) must cover the entire body including the face (niqāb) before non-mehrams, citing the Sahaba’s unanimous response (ʿĀ’ishah’s narration in Bukhārī 4750) and the verse’s protective purpose (“that they will be recognized and not be abused”) (Imam Ibn Taymiyyah – Hanbali, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwá 22/110; Imam Al-Shīrāzī- Shafi, Al-Muhadhdhab 3/191; Imam Al-Kāsānī – Hanafi, Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ 5/121; Imam Al-Dasūqī – Maliki, Hāshiyat al-Dasūqī 2/51). This consensus reflects rigorous adherence to the principle: “The Companions’ continuous practice on a verse constitutes definitive tafsir” (Imam Al-Zarkashī – Shafi, Al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ 4/498).
With regards to Surah Nur, Maliki school also accepts the general position of other schools by saying that it refers to mehrams and that bosom must be covered with Khimar. It diverges solely on permitting head-uncovering before mehrams based on its foundational reliance on ʿamal ahl al-Madīnah (the normative practice of Medina’s early community) as a primary source of jurisprudence. Imam Mālik (d. 179 AH) prioritized this living tradition—where extended familial cohabitation normalized relaxed dress among mehrams—interpreting the phrase “what ordinarily appears thereof” to include the head and hair, provided the aurah (from navel to knees, including bosom) is covered by a loose over-garment (e.g., dirʿ/gown) beyond form-fitting inner clothing – not merely a dupatta draped without full concealment (Al-Dasūqī: Ḥāshiyat al-Dasūqī 2/125; Al-Mudawwanah al-Kubrā 4/152). However, this divergence never negates the verse’s obligation. As Qāḍhī ‘Iyāḍ states: ‘The verse [24:31] remains a command from Allah. Our school’s interpretation applies only to women whose familial context mirrors early Medinan purity – where hair-display carried no fitnah. Where corruption exists, the default obligation (head cover) prevails’ (Ikmāl al-Muʿlim 6/24).”
Furthermore, this concession is juristically extinct because of prevalence of fitnah, Sheikh Al-Raysūnī states, “The so-called ‘Mālikī concession’ (of Al Nur:31) required four extinct conditions: 1) Women wearing loose, opaque dirʿ gowns, 2) Absolute familial piety with zero harassment history, 3) No non-mehram males in domestic spaces, 4) Total absence of corrupting media. If ONE condition fails – like a brother owning a smartphone – her hair becomes ‘awrah before him. Covering it is fard.” (Nadhārāt fī Fiqh al-Siyar, p. 91 | 2020). Thus, the practical Mālikī position today converges with other schools: indoor khimār (dupatta/hijab) is wājib before mehrams. Maliki exception in today’s time of fitnah has collapsed, but even when it existed, it was a self-contained juristic ecosystem, not a license for selective application.
Those invoking its indoor concession must consistently uphold its outdoor rigor—a holistic approach preserving ḥayā across spheres. Madhab Shoppers should realise that Malikis are stricter than other schools in other places, for example:
1. Stricter Public Covering: ” And the [Maliki] school is the strictest of the schools in covering the woman, to the extent that they forbid her from displaying her voice (which is an adornment) and her perfume (which is an adornment) in public, and forbid her from going out except for a necessity.” Imam Ibn Farḥūn (great Maliki Jurist of Medina), Tabṣirat al-Ḥukkām, 2/91
- Malikis require niqāb (face veil) and hand-covering before non-mehrams. Imam Al-Dardīr in Al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr, 2/110, says “A free woman must cover her entire body from non-mehrams—including her hair and nails… Exposing any part is impermissible under any circumstance.” Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr says Al-Kāfī fī Fiqh Ahl al-Madīnah, 1/494 (Dar Ibn Al Jawzi ed) “When a woman leaves her home, she must drape the jilbāb from her head to her feet… so that nothing of her is visible.” In reality, women must cover more outdoors than other schools demand—nullifying any perceived “benefit” from the indoor concession.
- Speaking Restrictions: “A woman’s voice is hidden adornment… It is forbidden for her to raise or soften it seductively before non-mehrams.” Imam Al-Qarāfī, Al-Dhakhīrah, 3/275.
- Perfuming Restrictions: “It is forbidden for a woman to wear perfume or display artificial adornments (like kohl or henna) when going out among non-mehrams.” Imam Wansharīsī, Al-Mi‘yār al-Mu‘rib, 7/143
2. Travel Restrictions: Women may not travel beyond their locality without a mehram (Ibn Rushd, Mālikī: Bidāyat al-Mujtahid 2/32). In practical terms, a woman cannot travel from a suburban home to an urban city center for shopping without a mehram.
3. Absolute Marital Guardianship: Marriage requires approval from the closest walī (paternal guardian like father or grandfather). If the senior walī objects, marriage is void—no recourse exists (Al-Mudawwanah 2/207; Bidāyat al-Mujtahid 2/32). Sad news for rebellious daughter, if father says “No” marriage is almost impossible.
Ḥayā: The Characteristic of Islam, Guarded by the Hijab
The Prophet ﷺ said: “Every religion has a distinct characteristic, and the distinct characteristic of Islam is modesty (ḥayā).” (Ibn Majah 4181 – Sahih by Sheikh Albani). Ḥayā is God-conscious modesty – a spiritual restraint preventing sin. The Dupatta/Khimar at home and Jilbab/Burqa/Abaya with Niqab outside are physical guardians of this distinct characteristic. Abandoning them erodes the very essence of Islamic femininity and the distinct characteristic of Islam, Haya. Prophet’s ﷺ said, “Ḥayā and īmān are paired. When one is lifted, the other follows.” (Musnad Aḥmad 13194, Hasan by Sheikh Albānī). Imam Ibn al-Qayyim says: “Verily, ḥayā is from the perfection of faith… When ḥayā departs from a person, nothing remains to restrain him from any repugnant action or vile character… For ḥayā is the lock (miftah) on all evil; when it is removed, the locks of evil are opened.” (Madārij al-Sālikīn, 2:256, Dar ʿĀlam al-Fawāʾid ed).
The Erosion:
Abandoning the Dupatta before mehrams loosens the first lock of ḥayā. Abandoning the Niqab removes a divinely ordained barrier. This erosion of ḥayā facilitates the broader moral decline witnessed in societies that abandon these obligations. It takes time for this to happen, a few generations of mothers and daughters to abandon haya completely, but it does happen. Learn from the West’s irreversible descent:
- Victorian mothers condemned Edwardian daughters for abandoning headscarves: “A bare-headed woman loses delicacy. She invites disrespect.” (Godey’s Lady’s Book, 1898).
- Edwardian mothers condemned flapper daughters for exposed ankles: “A woman showing ankles has no self-respect. It marks loose character.” (Chicago Tribune, 1916).
- Flappers who showed calves in the 1920s (“Tasteful calf is modernity!” – Vogue, 1925) condemned 1940s daughters for bared knees: “We showed restraint! These girls flaunt knees like trollops!” (Ladies’ Home Journal, 1948).
- 1940s knee-baring mothers condemned 1960s daughters for miniskirts: “We revealed knees with modesty! These thigh-high skirts are indecent exposure!” (McCall’s Magazine, 1966).
- Miniskirt wearers of the 1960s (“This is vitality, not vulgarity!” – Vogue, 1966) condemned 1990s and Y2K daughters’ exposed thongs and G-Strings: “I wore miniskirts without exposed thongs! This is a cry for help!” (Oprah, 2004).
- The 1990s and Y2K mothers of thong and G-Strings watch their daughters monetize near-nudity: “My 14-year-old sells lingerie photos online – corporations profit from her insecurities!” (New York Times, 2024).
The Trajectory Is Fixed: Hair (1890s) → ankles (1910s) → calves (1920s) → knees (1940s) → thighs (1960s) → underwear (1990s) → monetized nudity (2020s) → normalized prostitution (coming up) → worse to come. There is no plateau – only freefall. Each step justified as ‘progress’ until nothing remained sacred.
Once ḥayā’s guardrails fall, plunge accelerates with no plateau. West is living autopsy of decay where “freedom” has become OnlyFans is making money from the female body and worse is yet to come. Rebuilding ḥayā isn’t about policing hemlines; it’s restoring the spiritual lock that alone halts the descent (“When ḥayā departs, no restraint remains from vile action” – Ibn al-Qayyim). Without it, society is a laboratory of moral decay—each generation inheriting the last’s corruption and normalizing worse. Islam anchors ḥayā in divine command: Khimar/Dupatta indoors with mehrams, Niqab outdoors with non-mehrams. We have started on this slippery slope but there is still time to go back. Otherwise the Muslim trajectory will be the same as West’s: face → hair → ankles → calves → knees → thighs → underwear → monetized nudity → normalised prostitution (coming up) → worse to come. Protect ḥayā! Keep the Khimar/Hijab/Dupatta before mehrams and the Jilbab/Burqa/Abaya (with Niqab) before non-mehrams.
Colonial & Western Distortion: Dilution of Allah’s Law to Compromise Haya
Colonialists exploited Hanafi and Mālikī exceptionalism by isolating the Concession, and promoting corruption of Muslim’s understanding of their own laws. Colonial powers, Western secular ideology and Women’s liberation movements have systematically attacked Haya for the last 200 years.
Egypt: In 1873, under British-influenced modernization, girls at Egypt’s Saniyya School were pressured to remove the niqab. In 1899, Colonial agents like Qasim Amin launched Anti Niqab campaign in Tahrir al-Mar’a, promoting unveiling as a symbol of “progress”. In the same year, Lord Cromer removed Grand Mufti of Egypt and appointed Muhammad Abduh in his stead, in his dispatch Cromer justified Abduh’s appointment saying, “We require malleable mind in Mufti’s office… Abduh’s ‘reform’ align with our civilising mission” (National Archives UK, FO 633/Vol VII). Abduh remained on Colonial Payroll for his entire life and issued anti-Islam fatwas “civilising” Muslims, as if Allah did not know how to civilise humankind and need help from British, Astaghfirullah.
Algeria: In 1930s French started their campaigns against Hijab, by 1950s there was an unofficial ban. They consummated 75% percent of Algerian Waqf property (Islamic Law in Colonial Modernity; Iza Hussin, 2016, p. 204). The French closed down Quranic schools and diverted funds from Waqf to secular French education. This action alone brought Algerian literacy rate from around 50% to 5-10%, as Quranic education was denied and only French education was allowed.
India: In 1835, Macaulay’s education policy mocked purdah as ‘backwardness’. The British unlike French, did not do things directly, they used corruptible Muslims for this. For example in 1871 a Muslim Judge, Syed Mahmood (son of British-knighted Sir Syed Amed Khan of Aligarh) with no training in religion ruled from Allahabad High Court that “Hijab is cultural, not religious” (Queen-Empress vs. Ramza), starting a fitnah we are still fighting.
Under Colonialism, Westernisation, and Women’s “liberation”, the foundation of Islamic modesty is being eroded. Above are documented actions by Colonizers and West to loosen the grip of Islamic morality from Muslims. An atmosphere has been created over 200 years where Ḥayā is under constant attack, causing Muslims to argue against the understood religious practice of over 1000 years, that Jilbab/Burqa/Abaya with Niqab is command of Ahzab and Khirmar/Dupatta/Hijab is command of Surah Nur. This assault was amplified by Muslim elites on colonial payroll who severed Islam from its foundations by corrupting existing institution or creating new institutions that polluted its future minds. Classrooms established by these Colonial Agents became ideological factories, trading Allah’s verses for knighthoods and stipends. Two examples,
In Egypt: British-appointed Grand Mufti Muhammad Abduh corrupted Al-Azhar – replacing classical texts with “rationalist” curricula, purging texts on miracles/Ghayb, dismissing niqāb as ‘cultural’ and erasing Sahaba authority. Abduh’s work was later carried on by his student and disciple Rashid Rida. Abduh’s legacy has resulted in collapse of Al-Azhar’s religious authority, Shaykh al-Albani (widely known his work on Hadith) commented on Al Azhar, ‘Modern Al-Azhar scholars are strangers to authentic Sunnah.’ Other scholars have added, ‘Al-Azhar’s rulings parrot Western secularism, not Islamic tradition.’ – Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd (Member of Council of Senior Scholars KSA). ‘Its fatwas betray the Sunnah – avoid them!’ – Shaykh Muqbil al-Wadi’I (major Yemeni Scholar). ‘We can’t rely on fatwas from Al Azhar’ – Mufti Tariq Masood (Pakistani).
In India: Aligarh Muslim University was established with British funds and land grants. Blamed entirely for the 1857 revolt, Muslims faced a British strategy to replace traditional madrassas with Western models like Aligarh. Deobandi and Nadwi scholars fiercely opposed it, issuing fatwas declaring donations haram. Historian Peter Hardy (The Muslims of British India) describes it as a joint British-Muslim elite project to create English-fluent, pro-colonial leaders not a traditional Islamic institution; the greatest example of this is new pro-colonial leadership is son of Syed Ahmed himself who as a High Court Judge ruled hijab as cultural not religious. As Shaykh Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi stated: “AMU severed Muslims from their scholarly heritage. Its ‘Islam’ is crafted by colonizers.” (Muslims in India, 1980). Sir Syed himself taught that revelation must bow to 19th-century science, discarding or reinterpreting core beliefs: angels, Isa’s (AS) virgin birth, Musa’s sea-splitting (dismissed as an “illusion”), and the Miʿrāj. This led Mufti Taqi Usmani to ask: “When an institution’s founders deny Musa’s sea-splitting, what Islamic knowledge can it produce?” Being an Alumni myself, the answer is, “None”.
Result of This Distortion:
1. Dilution of Al-Ahzab (33:59): The full Jilbab/Burqa/Abaya with Niqab mandated for public protection was ridiculed as “backward.” It was reduced to merely “covering the hair” – misapplying An-Nur’s Khimar command (for mehrams) to the public sphere – stripping away the divine shield (Sitr) of the face veil.
2. Abandonment of An-Nur (24:31): The domestic command for the Dupatta (head & bosom cover) before mehrams was dismissed as irrelevant “culture,” eroding familial modesty (Haya).
3. The Void Created:
– Surah Al-Ahzab’s specific command for public protection (full cover incl. face) was nullified.
– Surah An-Nur’s specific command for domestic modesty (Dupatta) was rendered purposeless. If not for mehrams, it has no defined audience, leaving NO Qur’anic basis for modesty at home.
4. Corruption of Muslim Minds: Elite, influential and rich of Muslim society went to places like AMU. They are trained in secular education, with limited to no knowledge of Islam, Quran, Hadith, Shariah or its principles. This engineered ignorance continues to create a void where Muslims now argue against Allah’s law themselves – precisely the outcome colonial planners intended when severing Muslims from their scholarly heritage. AMU’s 150-year legacy has Zero Islamic scholars but countless secular elites who often speak against Islam, needing reform, as if something revealed by Allah was not perfect. Thus, battleground is set: Allah’s immutable commands vs. modern reinterpretations. But, Sahaba’s consensus stands as the unbreachable fortress.
The Binding Authority of the Sahaba Consensus (Ijma’ as-Sahaba): Fortress Against Modernist Deviation
Ijma’ as-Sahaba is Definitive Proof (Hujjah Qat’iyyah): The unanimous understanding and practice of the Sahaba (Companions of the Prophet ﷺ) regarding the meaning and application of the Qur’an and Sunnah, formed under his direct guidance, constitutes a primary source of Islamic law holding decisive authority alongside the Qur’an and Mutawatir Sunnah. (Imam Ahmad: Usul al-Sunnah §3; Imam Al-Shafi’i: Al-Risalah 470).
The Sahaba Consensus: Niqāb as Obligatory Implementation of Al-Aḥzāb 33:59
The Companions’ immediate, unified enactment of Surah Al-Aḥzāb 33:59 leaves zero room for “reinterpretation”. This consensus is Allah’s permanent firewall against human reinterpretation. As Shah Waliullah warns: ‘Rejecting the Sahaba’s understanding under ‘changing times’ is the way of deviants.’ (Ḥujjatullāh al-Bāligha 1/367)
– Sayyidah Aisha (RA) – Mother of the Believers: “When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ordered us (regarding 33:59) to draw our outer garments, we tore our waist-sheets and covered our faces (فَشَقَقْنَ مُرُوطَنَا فَاخْتَمَرْنَا بِهَا).” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4750). She clarifies: “…and he saw me before the Hijab (الْحِجَابُ – face covering) was made obligatory upon me (قَبْلَ أَنْ يُضْرَبَ الْحِجَابُ عَلَيَّ).” This defines the obligation from Al-Ahzab 33:59 as Niqab.
– Sayyidah Umm Salamah (RA) – Mother of the Believers: Described the immediate response: “When this verse was revealed, the women of Ansar emerged wearing their jalabib (outer garments) as if crows walked upon them [due to their full black coverings, including the face].” (Tafsir al-Tabari 21/90).
– Ibn ‘Abbas (RA) The Sahaba recognised by Sahabas as Interpreter of Quran: “Allah commanded the believing women, when they go out, to cover their faces (يُغَطِّينَ وُجُوهَهُنَّ) from above their heads with the Jilbab, leaving only one eye exposed.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 6/470).
– Ibn Mas’ud (RA) “The woman is ‘awrah, and when she goes out, the Shaytan looks at her.” (Al-Mughni 6/15), Ibn Masud says entire woman is awrah, including face. This unified practice by the Prophet’s wives and leading Companions constitutes indisputable Ijma’ as-Sahaba.
Scholars Upholding the Sahaba Consensus on Niqab:
– Imam Ibn Taymiyyah: “The jilbab… must cover her head and face… This is known from the Mothers of the Believers (Ummahat al-Mu’minin) and the righteous women among the Companions. It is obligatory (wajib) upon her to cover her face in front of non-mehram men… This is the apparent meaning (dhahir) of the Book of Allah (i.e., Surah Al-Ahzab 33:59) and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ, and the practice (amal) of his wives and daughters and the believing women among the Companions.” (Majmu’ al-Fatawa, 22/110-111)
– Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal: Affirmed the Niqab as part of the Jilbab obligation based on the practice of the Salaf. (Ibn Qudamah, Al-Mughni).
– Sheikh Ibn Rajab: “The Salaf are unanimously agreed upon the obligation of a woman covering her face from non-mehrams, and that it is awrah.” (Jāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm wa al-Ḥikam (2/228, Muassisat al-Risalah, Dar al-Hadith ed)
Theological Imperative: Rejecting “Reinterpretation” is Farz
Qur’an 4:115: “Whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the believers’ way, We will give him what he has chosen and burn him in Hell.” When Allah says, “The believers’ way” He means, Ṣaḥābah’s path. Ibn al-Qayyim: “The Companions’ understanding of the Qur’an is superior to all later opinions. Their consensus is a proof against innovators.” (Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn 4/122). Any later scholarly opinion or interpretation that contradicts the established consensus (Ijma) of the Sahaba is invalid and cannot be considered a legitimate Islamic position. Deviation from their path is misguidance (Qur’an 4:115).
Modernist Revisionism: A Colonial Sabotage Project
The 20th-century campaign to reduce Niqāb to a “cultural choice” or “recommendation” is a Direct Assault on Ijmāʿ aṣ-Ṣaḥābah, violating Allah’s command to “follow those who turned to Him” (Qur’an 31:15). Modernist calls to ‘contextualize’ Niqāb are theological sabotage: they demand rejecting the Sahaba’s divinely-guided practice for Eurocentric norms. Labeling Niqāb as ‘cultural’ is colonial semantics – a deliberate severing of divine law from its implementers (the Sahaba). This isn’t ijtihād – it’s apostasy from the believers’ way (Qur’an 4:115). Rooted in Colonial Academia: Funded think tanks (e.g., Al-Azhar’s “reforms” under British oversight) deliberately severed Islam from its foundations. Theologically Null: No “ijtihād” may oppose definitive consensus (Ijmāʿ al-Ṣaḥābah). “The Ṣaḥābah’s understanding of the Qur’an is the ultimate exegesis. Their consensus on hijāb (face-covering) is a proof against innovators till Judgment Day. Rejecting it under ‘changing times’ is the way of the deviant.” — Shah Waliullah Dehelvi, Ḥujjatullāh al-Bāligha 1/367 (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah)
Silencing Shayṭān’s Deceptions And Whispers
Current Environment
Shaytan whispers excuses in ears of believing women: “I’ll be ridiculed,” “It’s odd in this society,” “When nobody is doing, why should I?” “Why must women cover while men play football in shorts?”, etc. Reply: Each soul bears its own account (Qur’an 6:164), let not bad action of others influence what you are doing, you must focus on the account you have to give. You have to abide by the regulations of Surah Nur and Ahzab, not just for yourself, but also because, if your daughter, sister, or other Muslimah abandons these commands under your influence, you bear not only your sin but sin of every corruption you enabled – like Qabil will bear sin of every murder till Judgment Day.
Hadith of Asma Bint Abu Bakr (RA)
Another favourite Shaitan’s whisper is hadith of Hazrat Asma Bint Abu Bakr (RA), however Imām al-Qurṭubī notes in Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān (18/196): “This incident occurred before the revelation of Surah Al-Aḥzāb (33:59). After its revelation, the Mothers of the Believers covered their faces even before the blind (Sahih Muslim 2328).” Imām al-Suyūṭī states: “The command in Al-Aḥzāb to ‘draw your jalābīb over yourselves’ abrogated the earlier permissibility of displaying adornments (including the face) before non-maḥrams.” (Al-Itqān fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān 2/72). Sheikh ʿAbd al-Barr, often called, Bukhari of Maghrib said about this Hadith: “This incident was in Makkah before Hijāb verses.” (Al-Istīʿāb 4/1850, Dar al Jild ed). The period of this hadith is around 7-9BH when Hazrat Asma (RA) was young and recently married to Hazrat Zubair ibn Al Awwam (RA) in Makkah, while Surah Ahzab is 5AH and Surah Nur is 6AH. It is beyond doubt that this Hadith has been abrogated by Surah Ahzab.
Misquoting Imam Nawawi and Imam Ibn Hajar’s opinion and concessions
Shaytan’s deception also includes is citing Imam Nawawi and Imam Ibn Hajar concessions as a valid reason to abandon commands of Surah Nur and Ahzab. Ignoring the fact that none of them deny original obligation of Dupatta/Hijab of Surah Nur or Niqab/Burqa of Surah Ahzab, there is a presumption of these obligations by both these giants. Let us analyse each claim.
- Imam Ibn Hajar stated: “The command to cover the face is the original ruling (الأصل). Permissibility of uncovering is a concession (رخصة) for necessity.” (Fatḥ al-Bārī 9/324). If you read carefully the great Imam is rejecting some interpretations that said that covering face is not obligatory, he refers it back to original ruling (الأصل). The concessions offered by these Imams already assume Niqab’s foundational status and allowed a concession out of dire need – they are NOT reinterpretation or denying a Farz.
- Imam Al-Nawawī (Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 8/36) say about Hadith of our Mother Aisha (RA), where she said: “Riders passed us while we were with the Prophet ﷺ in ihrām. When they neared, we covered our faces; when they passed, we uncovered.” (Abū Dāwūd 1833). Imam Nawawi commented, “This proves covering the face is obligatory outside ihrām. The concession (rukḥṣah) to uncover it in ihrām is specific to that ritual state – like the permission to wear sandals while barefoot is forbidden.” This proves Imam Nawawi believed that covering of face is obligatory.
The Ihram Argument
“If the face isn’t covered in iḥrām, it can’t be ‘awrah!” is something Shayṭān’s Whispers all the time. This however ignores ritual context and classical consensus. Imām al-Nawawī clarifies: “Uncovering in iḥrām is an exception (rukḥṣah) like men exposing heads in tawāf – it never negates the face’s ‘awrah status outside iḥrām.” (Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 8/36). Further, Hadith of our Mother Aisha (RA) is definitive, “When riders approached during iḥrām, she and other wives immediately covered their faces” (Abū Dāwūd 1833). This proves that Covering is the default obligation and Uncovering is ritual-specific. We have already seen that Imam Ibn Ḥajar affirms that covering the face is the original ruling and Iḥrām’s permission is a constrained necessity, not license for abandonment. This corruption was spread by Muḥammad Abduh (British Bankrolled “Mufti”). He exploited this nuance to confuse Muslims – but his deviation contradicts 1,400 years of scholarship. In spite of Abduh fitnah, even today many women perform ṭawāf covering their faces – embodying the authentic, unbroken Sunnah.
Exploitation, extension and distortion of Maliki and Hanafi concessions
Similarly, Maliki and Hanafi concession is exploited as a rule instead of exception. Hakeem Ul Ummah Maulana Ashraf ‘Alī Thānwī (Hanafi) wrote: “Those using Ḥanafī rukhsa (concession) to abandon niqāb are agents of dajjāl.” (al-Ḥīlat al-Nājiza, p. 32). Hanafi’s mandate covering face, even if it can give rise to fitnah, Ibn ʿĀbidīn states in Radd al-Muḥtār (1/406) “If a woman’s face is beautiful, it becomes ʿawrah and must be covered to prevent fitnah.” Staring and looking at with lust is haram, similarly providing that opportunity is also haram. Even the Maliki exceptionalism of Surah Nur for mehrams goes away in times of Fitnah, Imam Qurtubi says (Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 12/229), “The exception ‘except what appears thereof’ is for necessity… When fitnah is feared, this exception is nullified, and covering becomes obligatory.” Fitnah is rampant all around us, and both Hanafis and Maliki concessions are ruled out today, as Fitnah exists.
Current Fitnah
Maulana Sanaullah Panipati (Hanafi) says in Tafsīr al-Maẓharī (5/31, Dar al-Nafaes), “Piety in this era necessitates covering the face due to the prevalence of fitan (temptations). Verily, it is obligatory for all.” And Sheikh Fadhel Belkheir (Maliki – Grand Mufti of Tunisia), “Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ’s restriction is now absolute: any fear of fitnah revives the full obligation. If a father watches TV dramas with unveiled women, his daughter must cover her hair before him.” Al-Ijtihād fī al-Madhhab al-Mālikī (p. 133 | Tunis: Dār al-Tunisiyyah, 2017)
Imam Malik declared: “The Sunnah is the ship of Nuh (AS). Whoever boards it is saved; whoever abandons it drowns.” (Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam al-Nubala 7:324). Rejecting the Sahaba’s hijab (Dupatta with mehrams, Niqab with non-mehrams) is abandoning the ship, the two great Imams, Maliki and Hanafi scholarship have not abandoned ship. Many modern scholars who deviate from Sahaba’s practice, using concessions and nuances as excuses to abandon Haya by abandoning Jilbab (Burqa and Abaya with Niqab) and Khimar (Hijab and Dupatta) will drown as Imam Malik has declared.
The Qur’anic Distinction: Summary
| Aspect | Surah An-Nur (24:31) | Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59) |
| Audience | Mehrams (Fathers, Sons, Brothers, Uncles, Nephews) | Non-Mehrams (Strangers, Unrelated Men) |
| Realm | Domestic Sphere (Inside Home/Family) | Public Sphere (Outside Home) |
| Command | “Draw their khumur (head veils) over their bosoms” | “Draw their jalābīb (outer garments) over themselves” |
| Islamic Garment | – Khimar/ Dupatta/ Hijab (Head & Bosom Cover) | – Jilbāb/ Burqa/ Abaya with Niqāb (Full Body & Face Cover) |
| Sahaba Consensus | Farḍ (Obligatory) indoors before Mehrams | Farḍ (Obligatory) outdoors with Niqāb (Face Cover) |
| Colonial Distortion | Dismissed as “cultural practice”; purpose abandoned | Reduced from full cover (incl. face) to “hair cover only” |
| Consequence | No divine basis for modesty before Mehrams | Divine protection nullified: وَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ (“they will not be abused”) |
Conclusion
The Qur’an provides two distinct, complementary commands:
1. Surah An-Nur (24:31): Mandates the Khimar/Dupatta/Hijab covering head and bosom as Farz before mehrams within the home. This is divine law establishing ḥayā at home with fathers, brothers, etc.
2. Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59): Mandates the Jilbab/Burqa/Abaya with Niqab as Fard before non-mehrams in public, based on the Binding Consensus (Ijma’) of the Sahaba. This is divine protection as Quran calls it protection.
Colonialism’s Endgame: Annihilate Ḥayā to Sever Muslims from its character
Colonialism and Western secularism and Women’s Liberation deliberately distorted Islamic system: Al-Ahzab’s Niqab obligation was stripped away and reduced to the head covering meant for inside (An-Nur). An-Nur’s domestic Dupatta obligation was abandoned, leaving no Qur’anic basis for modesty before fathers and brothers. This void leads to loss of ḥayā – the West’s descent from Victorian headscarves to OnlyFans proves the moral downfall and we are not at the end-stage. Reject this corruption, accept Haya, remember Haya and Iman are paired, loss of one will lead to loss of another. Do not loose Haya, because it will lead to loss of Iman.
Ihdinas-Siraatal-Mustaqeem, Siraatal-lazeena an’amta ‘alaihim
We pray 17 times daily: “Guide us to the Straight Path – the path of those You have blessed…” (Fatiha 6-7). Allah defines those blessed: “The first forerunners among the Muhājirīn and Anṣār, and those who followed them in goodness” (Qur’an 9:100). Every ‘Ihdinas-Siraatal-Mustaqeem’ is a plea: we beg Allah to ‘Anchor us to the Sahaba’s path’ – Sahaba’s path is where Niqāb is a shield and Khimār is a crown. To abandon their practice is to mock this very Dua. We seek refuge in Sahaba’s Path 17 times daily, how can we then abandon it? Sahabiyat wore Jilbab/Burqa/Abaya with Niqab before non-mehrams and Khimar/Dupatta/Hijab before mehrams, we have to choose their path, the path we pray for 17 times a day, the real Sirat Al Mustaqim.
The Khalafzaee Blog 