and this chain is munqatiʿ (interrupted). He then related a similar report from Ibn Jurayj: ʿAishah said, “I once went out before my nephew ʿAbd Allah b. al-Tufayl while I was adorned, and the Prophet disliked that. I said, ‘Messenger of Allah, but he is my nephew!’ He replied, ‘When a woman has begun to menstruate, it is not lawful for her to show anything except her face—except what is below this,’ and he grasped his own forearm.” This hadith is munkar (objectionable) because of the weakness of its chain and because it contradicts a stronger narration—namely the hadith of ʿAishah that will be cited from Abu Dawud. Anyone versed in this noble science knows the latter is stronger, for it has a supporting report from the Prophet’s words, the hadith of Asmaʾ mentioned later in the commentary, and it conforms to the practice of the female Companions, as will be shown. By contrast, the present report has no corroborating evidence and was never acted upon, so it is munkar. Ibn Jurayj’s version contains an even graver flaw: it clashes with the Quran, for it plainly condemns ʿAishah’s appearing adorned before her nephew, whereas Allah says, “and they should not reveal their adornment except to their husbands … or the sons of their brothers” (24:31). The verse explicitly permits a woman to show her adornment to her nephew; hence the hadith is also objectionable on this ground. I pointed out some of this in my rejoinder to Ustadh Mawdudi, published at the end of the first Damascus edition of his book Al-Hijab. There I noted that Qatadah’s report is mursal and Ibn Jurayj’s is muʿdal—there are vast gaps between him and ʿAishah! Ustadh Mawdudi conceded this, yet sought to strengthen the hadith by combining the two defective chains, claiming that each fully supports the other. What escaped his notice— I do not say he shut his eyes to it— is that in the muʿdal chain there is something that is not