Likewise, the Prophet ﷺ instructed Umm Salamah and Maymunah to screen themselves when Ibn Umm Maktūm entered. They objected, “But he is blind.” He replied, “Are you two blind as well, so that you do not see him?”—a ḥasan report found in the Sunan collections.

Al-Nawawī said: The correct view adopted by the majority—and by most of our Shāfiʿī colleagues—is that it is unlawful for a woman to look at an unrelated man, just as it is unlawful for him to look at her. He cited the verse as evidence and added, “Temptation is mutual; just as one fears that he may be tempted by her, one must fear that she may be tempted by him.” The ḥadīth of Umm Salamah supports this.

9- It is permissible to propose to a woman whom someone else has already approached, provided one is unaware of the first suitor and knows that his offer has not been accepted.

10- Obeying the Prophet’s ﷺ command always brings goodness and blessing, whether a person initially likes it or not.

Scholarly disagreement
The jurists have differed over whether a woman who has been irrevocably divorced (bāʾin) is entitled to maintenance and housing during her ʿiddah.

• Imām Aḥmad held that she is entitled to neither maintenance nor housing. This was also the view of ʿAlī, Ibn ʿAbbās, Jābir, ʿAṭāʾ, Ṭāwūs, al-Ḥasan, ʿIkrimah, Isḥāq, Abū Thawr, and Dāwūd, who all relied on the present ḥadīth.

• The Ḥanafīs maintained that she is entitled to both maintenance and housing. This is narrated from ʿUmar and Ibn Masʿūd and was adopted by Ibn Abī Laylā and Sufyān al-Thawrī. They based their view on a statement attributed to ʿUmar: “We shall not abandon the Book of our Lord for the word of a woman.”

• Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī held that she is entitled to housing but not maintenance. This is also the position of ʿĀʾishah, the seven jurists of Madinah, and a second report from Aḥmad. They cite the verse, “House them where you live, according to your means” (Q 65:6).

The strongest opinion is the first, because its proof is weighty and faces no opposing evidence.

The second opinion is weak, for the statement they rely on is not authentically established from ʿUmar. Imām Aḥmad was asked about its soundness and said, “No.” Even if it were authentic, the explicit words of the Prophet ﷺ take precedence over everyone’s personal reasoning.

As for the third opinion, their proof from the verse does not hold, for that verse concerns a revocable divorce, not an irrevocable one. This is clarified by Allah’s words, “You do not know; perhaps Allah will bring about, after that, a new matter” (Q 65:1). The “new matter” refers to the husband’s renewed inclination toward his wife during the waiting period—something impossible in an irrevocable divorce.