So says the poor fellow, as though he did not realize that she was not in a state of iḥrām, during which gloves are forbidden, and that the alleged act of defense could have been accomplished with a single hand. Where, then, is the "necessity" that would allow the uncovering of both hands? Even if such a necessity had existed, it would be confined to its exact measure, as the scholars state.

Indeed, this man—and those like him among the blind imitators—have inherited the habit of wielding the sword of negation against the texts, stripping them of their clear import in order to defend fanciful meanings that have no reality. Will no one take heed?