—namely, the face and the hands (6 / 369):
The jurists in this chapter have adopted the opinion of Ibn ʿAbbās and Ibn ʿUmar. He then said: “Such is what has reached us concerning a woman and the ruling on her covering herself in prayer and outside of prayer.”
Reflect on his words: “and outside of prayer.”

In the Muwaṭṭaʾ, the recension of Yaḥyā (2 / 935), it is reported:
Mālik was asked: “May a woman eat with a man who is not her maḥram, or with her young servant?” Mālik replied, “There is no objection, provided it is in the manner customarily accepted for a woman to eat with men.” He added, “A woman may eat with her husband and with others who share his meal.”

Al-Bājī comments in al-Muntaqā Sharḥ al-Muwaṭṭaʾ (7 / 252) immediately after this passage:
“This entails that a man’s looking at a woman’s face and hands is permissible, for these parts are exposed when she eats with him.”

Third: The school of al-Shāfiʿī
He states in al-Umm (2 / 185):
“A woman in iḥrām is not to cover her face, unless she wishes to conceal it; then she should draw the cloth away from (touching) her face.”

Al-Baghawī writes in Sharḥ al-Sunnah (9 / 23):
“If the woman is a free non-relative, her entire body is ʿawrah for the man; he is not permitted [35] to look at any part of her except the face and the hands up to the wrists. Even then, he must lower his gaze from her face and hands if there is fear of temptation.”

So, O Shaykh, are these texts confined to the prayer?

Fourth: The school of Aḥmad
Ibn Ṣāliḥ relates in his Masāʾil (1 / 319) that Imām Aḥmad said:
“A woman in iḥrām does not cover her face and does not wear the niqāb; as for sidl, there is no harm in it—she may let the cloth hang in front of her face.”

I say: His statement “there is no harm in it” proves that sidl is permissible, invalidating the Shaykh’s claim that it is obligatory. It also nullifies his restriction of the other report from the Imām— the report that agrees with the three other imāms that a woman’s face and hands are not ʿawrah, as has already been cited from Ibn Hubayrah. Ibn Taymiyyah endorsed this in his Fatāwā (15 / 371); it is the sound view in his school, as indicated in al-Insāf, and the preference of Ibn Qudāmah, already noted in “The First Discussion.” He reasoned:

“Had the face and hands been ʿawrah, covering them with the niqāb would not have been forbidden, for necessity calls for uncovering the face for buying and selling and the hands for taking and giving.”

The same rationale is cited in many works of jurisprudence and beyond, such as al-Baḥr al-Rāʾiq by Ibn Nujaym al-Miṣrī (1 / 284); something similar was mentioned by al-Shawkānī at the beginning of this “Fifth Discussion” (27).
[36]