I add: this implies that the woman’s question was asked only after she had left the state of ihram, for it is well known that once the pilgrim has stoned Jamrat al-Aqaba everything becomes lawful for him except intimacy with women; accordingly, the Khath‘ami woman was no longer muhrima. The hadith, like the one before it, shows that the face is not part of the ‘awra, because—as Ibn Hazm argued—“Had the face been ‘awra that had to be covered, the Prophet would not have allowed her to keep it uncovered in the presence of people; he would have instructed her to let her veil fall over it. And had her face been covered, Ibn Abbas would not have been able to tell whether she was beautiful or plain.” In Fath al-Bari (11/8) Ibn Battal writes: “The hadith commands lowering the gaze for fear of fitna (temptation); its implication is that when temptation is not feared the prohibition does not apply. This is supported by the fact that the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not turn al-Fadl’s face away until he had continued to look at her, being impressed by her beauty, whereupon the Prophet feared temptation for him. The report also illustrates the strength of human instinct in the son of Adam and his weakness before his inclination toward women and admiration of them. Furthermore, it proves that the believing women are not obliged to observe the same hijab as the wives of the Prophet; had that been required of all women, the Prophet would have ordered the Khath‘ami woman to conceal herself rather than merely turning al-Fadl’s face away. Finally, it indicates that covering a woman’s face is not mandatory, for the scholars agree that a woman may uncover her face in prayer even if non-mahram men can see it.” All of this is Ibn Battal’s analysis, and it is both strong and sound. Ibn Hajar, however, criticizes it, saying: “I say that Ibn Battal’s inference from the story of the Khath‘ami woman is open to objection, for she was in ihram.” I reply: Not so; there is no evidence that she was in ihram—indeed, the apparent sense is to the contrary, as we have already shown