Ibn al-Athīr said: “In the ḥadīth of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAdiyy ibn al-Khayyār it states: ‘He came while performing iʿtijār with his turban, and nothing of him was visible except his eyes and his legs.’ Iʿtijār with a turban means to wind it round one’s head, then fling one end of it over the face without passing anything of it beneath the chin.” End quote.

I say: This does not contradict what the linguists have already explained about iʿtijār, for Ibn al-Athīr’s own wording in the ḥadīth—“nothing of him was visible except his eyes”—serves merely as a descriptive detail for that particular instance of iʿtijār; it is not an intrinsic requirement. It is just like someone saying, “He arrived mukhtamir or mutaʿammim, so that only his eyes could be seen.” No one familiar with the language would understand from such a sentence that covering the entire face apart from the eyes is an essential component of ikhtimār or taʿammum.

Hence al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, in Fatḥ al-Bārī (7/369), added nothing beyond the remark:
“mutaʿtijir: i.e. he had wrapped his turban round his head without taḥnīk (bringing it under the chin).”

In sum: when used without qualification, both khimār and iʿtijār simply denote covering the head. Anyone who insists that they also imply covering the face is obstinately opposing the proofs already cited. Accordingly, the shaykh—and those who have followed him—cannot legitimately draw upon the ḥadiths mentioning women’s ikhtimār or iʿtijār to support his baseless claim, whether in law or in language. At the same time, our reliance on the verse concerning the khimār and on the forthcoming ḥadith of Fāṭimah (p. 66, no. 5) as evidence that a woman’s face is not part of her ʿawrah remains sound, as will be explained there—Allah is the One whose help is sought. (See also the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah regarding the ikhtimār of the female Emigrants in …) ⦗25⦘