We maintain, then, that there is no contradiction between this ḥadīth and the interpretation of the verse we have adopted. The report does not deny the jilbāb (outer cloak); it merely denies the ḥijāb. From that one cannot conclude an absolute negation of the jilbāb except as a possibility. It may also be that the negation concerns only that form of jilbāb which covers the face as well, for the wording of the ḥadīth itself is explicit: “He spread his cloak over her back and face.” What follows will strengthen this likelihood. It was by this distinctive covering that the Companions could tell his free wives ﷺ from his slave women, and this is precisely what they meant—whether positively or negatively—by their earlier statement: “If he veils her, she is his wife; if he does not veil her, she is a concubine.”
It therefore becomes clear that their words, “and if he does not veil her,” refer specifically to leaving the face uncovered. They do not rule out covering the rest of the slave woman’s body, including her head—much less her chest and neck. Thus the ḥadīth and the verse are in full agreement. Praise be to Allah for His guidance.1
(1) As for Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya’s statement in his Tafsir of Surat al-Nur, where—after quoting the previously mentioned hadith of Anas—he writes (p. 56): “The hijab is confined to free women and does not apply to bondwomen; this was the practice (sunnah) of the believers in the time of the Prophet ﷺ and his caliphs: the free woman would veil herself, whereas the bondwoman would appear in public,” this claim is puzzling. Its oddity lies in attributing the ruling to the practice of the believers during the Prophet’s lifetime, implying his tacit approval. Had an explicit and sound text to that effect existed, it would have been sufficient proof for limiting the obligation to free women and a clear basis for restricting God’s words, “and the believing women” (Q 24:31), to that category; we would then retract what we argued above. Yet I find no such report—let alone an authentic one. The only evidence on the subject is the hadith of Anas, and Ibn Taymiyya cites nothing else; you have already seen its problems. God knows best. I had wished not to delve into the issue of the bondwoman’s hijab in such detail, for it is of no practical relevance today, but scholarly rigor demanded it.