And tell the believing women to lower their gaze...
(And tell the believing women to lower their gaze)—that is, they should not look at what is not permissible for them to look at, such as the awrah (private parts) of men and women, which is the area between the navel and the knee. In Al-Zawajir by Ibn Hajar al-Makki, it is stated that just as it is forbidden for a man to look at a woman, it is forbidden for her to look at him, even without lust or fear of temptation. Yes, if there is a relationship of mahramiyyah (unmarriageable kin) due to blood, nursing, or affinity, each may look at the other except for what is between the navel and the knee. It is mentioned in some books of the companions [of the school] that if her looking at what is outside the navel-to-knee area is with lust, it is forbidden, and if without it, it does not move [the desire]. Yes, her lowering her gaze from non-mahram men entirely is better and more virtuous for her. Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi (who graded it sahih), Al-Nasa'i, and Al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan recorded from Umm Salamah that she was with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and Maymunah, when Ibn Umm Maktum approached and entered upon him. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "Veil yourselves from him." I said: "O Messenger of Allah, is he not blind? He does not see us." He said: "Are you both blind? Do you not see him?" This is used as evidence by those who hold that it is absolutely forbidden for a woman to look at anything of a non-mahram man. It is not far-fetched to say it is forbidden for a woman to look at a woman except for what is between the navel and the knee if it is with lust, and do not consider the occurrence of this unlikely, for it is common among those women who engage in lesbianism, may Allah Almighty grant refuge from it.
(And let them guard their private parts)—meaning, from what is not lawful for them, such as adultery and lesbianism, or from exposing them, or what encompasses both [guarding and not exposing].
(And not to display their adornment)—meaning, that with which they adorn themselves, such as jewelry and the like.
(Except what is apparent of it)—meaning, except that which custom and nature dictate must be apparent, and which is essentially apparent, such as rings, fatkhah (a ring without a seal), kohl, and henna. There is no blame in displaying these to non-mahrams; rather, the blame lies in displaying hidden adornments such as bracelets, anklets, armbands, necklaces, crowns, scarves, and earrings.
The adornment is mentioned rather than its specific sites of placement to exaggerate the command to cover, because these adornments are placed upon parts of the body which it is not permissible for those excluded later in the verse to see—namely the forearm, calf, upper arm, neck, head, chest, and ear. Thus, the display of the adornment itself is prohibited so that it may be known that if looking at the adornment is not permissible due to its attachment to those sites, then looking at the sites themselves is even more established in prohibition, firmly rooted in sanctity, and a witness that women ought to be cautious in covering them and fearing Allah Almighty in revealing them. This is as stated in Al-Kashshaf, and according to what Al-Tayyibi said, it implies that what is mentioned is a form of metonymy, similar to their saying: "So-and-so is clean of pocket and clean of skirt."
The author of Al-Fara'id said: "It is from the category of applying the name of the state (adornment) to the place (the body part), so the intended meaning of 'adornment' is the sites thereof, thus making the prohibition of looking at the sites a matter of textual implication, which is stronger." And there is debate regarding this. It is also said the speech is based on an omitted noun; i.e., "do not show the sites of their adornment." Ibn al-Munir said: "Adornment is in its literal sense," and what will come, God willing, from His saying: "(And let them not strike their feet...)" confirms that the display of adornment is the intended object of the prohibition. Furthermore, if the intended meaning of adornment were its site, then it would be permissible for non-mahrams to look at what appeared of the sites of visible adornment, and this is false because the entire body of a woman is an awrah (intimate area) and it is not permissible for anyone other than the husband or a mahram to look at any part of it except by necessity, such as medical treatment or testifying. You know that Ibn al-Munir is Maliki, and what he mentioned is based on his school, while what Al-Zamakhshari mentioned is based on the famous position of Imam Abu Hanifah, that the sites of visible adornment—the face, hands, and feet—are not awrah at all, so looking at them is not forbidden.
Abu Dawud, Ibn Marduwayh, and Al-Bayhaqi recorded from Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, that Asma bint Abu Bakr entered upon the Prophet, peace be upon him, wearing thin clothing. He turned away from her and said: "O Asma, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it is not proper that anything be seen of her except this," and he pointed to his face and hands. Ibn Abi Shaybah and Abd ibn Humayd recorded from Ibn Abbas that he said regarding the verse: "(Except what is apparent of it): The face and the inside of the hands." They also recorded from Ibn Umar that he said: "The face and the hands." Perhaps they consider the feet like the hands, though they did not mention them, being content with the knowledge of analogy, for the hardship in covering them is more severe than covering the hands, especially regarding the majority of poor Arab women who walk to attend to their needs on the roads. The Shafi'i school, as in Al-Zawajir, holds that the face and hands (their backs and palms up to the wrists) are an awrah regarding the look of a woman, even a slave woman, according to the more correct position, even if they are not awrah for a free woman in prayer.
In Al-Minhaj and its commentary by Ibn Hajar in the chapter on conditions of prayer, it is stated that the awrah of a slave woman, even if she is partially free or a mukātabah (one under a contract of manumission) or an umm walad (a slave mother), is like the awrah of a man: between the navel and the knee, according to the more correct position. The awrah of a free woman, even one not yet of age, and an hermaphrodite is everything except the face and hands. The prohibition of looking at them, like the part of a slave woman that is awrah, is because that is a locus of temptation. It is mandatory to cover the private parts of a slave woman in seclusion just like a man, and for a free woman only between the navel and the knee, except for the slightest purpose, such as cooling or fear of dust on clothing, it is finished.
It is mentioned in Al-Zawajir that it is forbidden to look at everything that has been detached from a woman, because seeing a part may lead to seeing the whole, so it is appropriate to forbid looking at it as well. Indeed, [Ibn Hajar] said: "Our Imams held that looking at a woman’s cut fingernail is forbidden even if it is from her hand." Some Shafi'is leaned toward the permissibility of looking at the face and hands if temptation is feared not, but this is not relied upon by them. Some of their great scholars interpreted "what is apparent" as the face and hands, having presented the verse as evidence that a free woman's awrah is everything except them, and they attributed the prohibition of looking at them to them being a "locus of temptation," which proves that not everything whose gaze is forbidden is an awrah. You know that the permission to show the face and hands according to their interpretation of the verse, alongside the claim that looking at them is absolutely forbidden, is extremely far-fetched, so reflect on this.
Know that if the intent is a prohibition against showing the sites of adornment, and it is said that it is general including the face and hands, and one is committed to the position that they are awrah and that showing them is forbidden to everyone except those excluded later, then it is possible that the exclusion in His saying: "(Except what is apparent of it)" is from the ruling established by way of indication (pointing to the hereafter), which is the accountability in the Abode of Recompense. The meaning would be: what becomes apparent of her without her showing it—for example, if the wind revealed it—they are not held accountable for it in the Abode of Recompense. Included in this rule is what becomes necessary to reveal, such as for the purpose of testifying or medical treatment. Al-Tabarani, Al-Hakim (who graded it sahih), Ibn al-Mundhir, and others recorded from Ibn Mas'ud that "what is apparent" is the garment and the outer cloak (jilbab), and in another narration, it is limited to the garments, to which Imam Ahmad also restricted it. The term "adornment" has been applied to them in His saying: "(Take your adornment at every mosque)," as mentioned in Al-Bahr. It came in some narrations from Ibn Abbas that "what is apparent" is the kohl, the ring, the earring, and the necklace. Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded from Ikrimah that it is the palm and the base of the throat, and from Al-Hasan that it is the ring and the bracelet. Others have been narrated as well. It is not hidden that some reports are apparent in taking "adornment" to mean its literal sense, and some are apparent in taking it to mean the sites thereof. Ibn Bahr said: "Adornment is applied to the beauties of creation that Allah Almighty has made, and to that which one adorns oneself with, such as fine clothing. The intent in the verse is to prohibit displaying that to one who is not a mahram, and it excludes what cannot be concealed at certain times, such as the face and the extremities." Some have denied applying the term "adornment" to the physical creation, but in Al-Bahr, it is stated: "The closest is its inclusion in adornment; and what adornment is more beautiful than a balanced creation?"
(And let them draw their veils over their bosoms)—a guide to the method of concealing some of the sites of adornment after prohibiting their display. Khumur (veils) is the plural of khimar, and the plural of paucity is akhmirah; both plurals are regular. It is the head-covering that a woman throws over her head—from al-khamr, which is concealment. Juyub (bosoms) is the plural of jayb, which is an opening at the top of the shirt through which part of the body appears. Its origin, it is said, is from jayb meaning cutting. In Al-Sihah, you say: "I cut (*ajib) the shirt's collar," when you hem its neck. The poet said: "She spends the night cutting the dark of night..." and its application to what is mentioned is the known linguistic meaning. As for its application to what is at the side for putting coins and the like, as is common among us today, it is not from the speech of the Arabs, as Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned, but it is not an error in terms of meaning. The intended meaning of the verse, as narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim from Ibn Jubayr, is to command them to cover their throats and chests with their veils so that nothing of them is seen. Women used to cover their heads with veils and let them fall, like the custom of the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic era), behind their backs, so their throats and part of their chests would appear. It is confirmed that when this verse was revealed, the women of the Muhajirun rushed to comply with what was in it, tearing their murut (garments) and veiling themselves with them in belief and faith in what Allah Almighty had revealed in His Book. The verb yadribna is followed by bi ("with") and ala ("over"), according to Abu Hayyan, to include the meaning of placing and throwing. It is said it means to fasten. The apparent speech of Al-Raghib is that it takes ala without being combined with other meanings. Abbas read from Abu Amr: wa-li-yadribna with a kasra on the lam; Talhah [read] bi-khumurihinna with a sukun on the mim. More than one of the seven readers read juyubihinna with a kasra on the jim, and the damma is the original because fa'l is pluralized as fu'ul in both the sound and weak forms, like fulus and buyut; the kasra is to harmonize with the ya'. Al-Zajjaj claimed that it is a poor linguistic form.
(And let them not display their adornment)—the prohibition is repeated to except some items of permission based on the viewer, after having excluded some items of necessity based on the one viewed.
(Except to their husbands)—i.e., their spouses, for they are the ones intended for adornment, and their wives are commanded [to adorn themselves] for them, such that they have the right to beat them for neglecting it, and they have the right to look at her entire body, even the accustomed place [of the private parts], as in Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim. Most Shafi'is considered looking at that as disliked (makruh), and some forbade it. It is said that it is contrary to what is best (khilaf al-awla), and this is, as Al-Khafaji stated, the position of the Hanafis, and its detail is in Al-Hidayah. In what we have mentioned is an indication of why the husbands were placed first.
(Or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters)—because of the necessary intermingling between them and the women, and the rarity of temptation arising from them. They may look at what appears of them during labor and service. This ruling is not specific to the closest fathers, but fathers of fathers, no matter how high they go, are the same, as are fathers of mothers. Likewise, it is not specific to biological sons, but encompasses them and the sons of sons, no matter how low they go. The intent of "brothers" includes those of the same father and mother, those of the same father, and those of the same mother. The same is said regarding the sisters. The term bani ("sons of") was used with them rather than abna' because it is more consistent with generality and more commonly used for a group who belong to one person without a unity of their relationship category among them. Do you not see that you often hear Bani Adam and Bani Tamim, and seldom hear Abna' Adam and Abna' Tamim? In our situation, a woman might have a brother of a full brother, a brother of a half-brother, and so on.
It is said that bani was chosen in the last two cases because if abna' were used, two hamzas would collide: one the hamza of abna' and the third the hamza of ikhwan or akhawat. Yet, this does not end the matter of the question, for the questioner could say: "Why were abna' chosen in the first two and not bani?" One would need to say it was chosen because it is more consistent with aba' (fathers). It is said that abna' was chosen in the first two for this reason, and bani was chosen in bani akhawatihinna so that the possessor and the possessed are of the same type. In bani ikhwanihinna, it is for the sake of assimilation.
Allah did not mention uncles—paternal or maternal—even though they, as Al-Hasan and Ibn Jubayr said, are like other mahrams in the permissibility of displaying adornment to them. It is said this is because they are in the position of brothers, since the grandfather—whether father of the father or father of the mother—is in the position of the father, so his son is in the position of the brother. It is also said they were not mentioned because the most cautious path is for women to cover themselves from them, for fear that they might describe them to their sons, which would lead to the sons looking at them. Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded this from Al-Sha'bi, and it contains an indication of the obligation of covering from non-mahrams. This was challenged by saying that it would also apply to the fathers of husbands, for if they saw their adornment, they might describe them to their sons, who are not mahrams, leading to their looking at them, especially if they were single. It is said they were not mentioned as they are implicitly included by mentioning the fathers, for they are in the position of fathers to people, especially paternal uncles; often "father" is used for the paternal uncle, as in His saying: "(And when Ibrahim said to his father, Azar)." Furthermore, the mahramiyyah that permits display comes from the side of blood relationship as well as nursing; thus, it is permissible for them to display their adornment to their fathers and sons, for example, through nursing.
(Or their women)—those who are specifically associated with them by companionship from the free believing women, for the disbelieving women do not feel restrained from describing them to men, so they are like non-mahram men in displaying adornment to them. There is no difference in that between a dhimmiyyah (non-Muslim woman under protection) and others, and this is the position of most of the predecessors. Sa'id ibn Mansur, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan recorded from Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, that he wrote to Abu Ubaydah, may Allah be pleased with him: "As for what follows, it has reached me that the women of the Muslims enter the baths with the women of the polytheists. Forbid the one who is under you from that, for it is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to look at her awrah, except for one who is of her own religion."
In Al-Nawawi’s Rawdah, there are two opinions regarding a dhimmiyyah woman looking at a Muslim woman: the more correct one according to Al-Ghazali is that she is like a Muslim woman, and the more correct one according to Al-Baghawi is prohibition. In his Minhaj, the more correct [opinion] is the prohibition of a dhimmiyyah woman looking at a Muslim woman, which implies she is like a non-mahram, and a group of Shafi'is relied on this. Ibn Hajar said: "The more correct is the prohibition of her looking at what is not typically apparent during labor from a Muslim woman other than her mistress or her mahram." The entry of dhimmiyyah women upon the Mothers of the Believers, as reported in authentic hadiths, is evidence for the permissibility of her looking at what is typically apparent during labor. Imam Al-Razi said: "The school is that she is like a Muslim woman, and the intent by 'their women' is all women, and the saying of the predecessors is interpreted as recommendation." This position is more lenient for people today, as it is almost impossible for Muslim women to veil themselves from dhimmiyyah women.
(Or what their right hands possess)—i.e., their female slaves, even if they are disbelievers. As for male slaves, they are like non-mahrams, and this is the school of Abu Hanifah, may Allah be pleased with him, and one of two opinions in the Shafi'i school, which many Shafi'is have graded as correct. The other opinion is that they are like mahrams. In the Minhaj and its commentary by Ibn Hajar, it is stated that the more correct [opinion] is that the look of a trustworthy male slave—and piety alone against adultery is not sufficient—who is not communal, partially free, or mukātab, is like the look of a mahram toward his mistress who is characterized by piety; he may look at everything of her except what is between the navel and the knee, and she may look at that from him. He is also treated like a mahram in seclusion and travel. Ibn al-Musayyib held that the male slave is like the female slave, then he retracted it and said: "Do not let the verse of An-Nur deceive you, for it is regarding females, not males," and he reasoned that they are men, not husbands or mahrams, and lust is realized in them because marriage is permissible for them in general, as in Al-Bidayah.
It is narrated from Ibn Mas'ud, Al-Hasan, and Ibn Sirin that they said: "A male slave may not look at the hair of his mistress." Abd al-Razzaq and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Tawus that he was asked: "Can a woman's servant see her head and her foot?" He said: "I do not like that, unless he is a minor servant, but as for a man with a beard, no." The school of Aishah and Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with them, and it is narrated from some Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt, may Allah be pleased with them, that it is permissible for the male slave to look at his mistress as those excluded look. It is narrated from Aishah that she would comb her hair while her male slave looked at her, and that she said to Dhakwan: "When you place me in the grave and leave, you are free." From Mujahid: "The Mothers of the Believers did not veil themselves from their mukātab slaves as long as a dirham remained of his contract." Ahmad in his Musnad, Abu Dawud, Ibn Marduwayh, and Al-Bayhaqi recorded from Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet, peace be upon him, brought to Fatimah, may Allah be pleased with her, a slave whom he had gifted to her, and Fatimah had a garment on; if she covered her head with it, it would not reach her feet, and if she covered her feet, it would not reach her head. When the Prophet, peace be upon him, saw the hardship she was in, he said: "There is no harm upon you, he is only your father and your servant."
The implication of the apparent meaning of the verse is that there is no difference between male and female due to the generality of "what" (ma), and because if the intent were females specifically, it would have been said "or their female slaves," for it is more concise and explicit in the intended meaning. When the aforementioned report is added to that, the position of there being no difference is strengthened, and avoiding it is difficult. The best answer regarding the report is that the servant in it was a young boy, for the term "servant" (ghulam) is truly specific to him, so reflect. The slave of the husband is excluded by the addition of ownership to them, so he is equal to a non-mahram. It is said that some made him like a mahram due to the reading: "(Or what your right hands possess)."
(Or the male attendants who have no physical desire)—meaning those who follow [the women] to obtain some of the surplus food, who have no need for women, such as the elderly men whose desires have faded, or the mamsuh (castrated men) whose manhood and testicles have been cut. Regarding the majbub (the one whose penis is cut) and the khasi (the one whose testicles are cut), there is disagreement, and it was chosen that they are, in the prohibition of looking, like other non-mahrams. Mu'awiyah used to hold the view that the look of the khasi is permissible, but his opinion is not counted; he was, it is said, the first to employ castrated men. From Maysun al-Kalabiyyah: Mu'awiyah entered and with him was a khasi, so she veiled herself from him. He said: "He is a khasi." She said: "O Mu'awiyah, do you think that the mutilation done to him makes lawful what Allah has forbidden?" And he has no right to use as evidence what is narrated that the Muqawqis gifted a khasi to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and he accepted him, for there is no evidence in that for the permissibility of letting him enter upon women.
Ibn Jarir and a group recorded from Mujahid that the "those having no physical desire" are the simpletons who do not understand the affairs of women. This is also narrated from Abu Abd Allah, may Allah be pleased with them. From Ibn Jubayr that he is the mentally deficient, and the insane is like him, as Ibn Atiyyah said. Ibn al-Mundhir and others recorded from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, that he is the effeminate one who is not potent, but Muslim, Abu Dawud, Al-Nasa'i, and others recorded from Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, who said: "A man used to enter upon the wives of the Prophet, peace be upon him, who was effeminate, and they used to count him among those having no physical desire. The Prophet, peace be upon him, entered one day while he was with one of his wives, and he was describing a woman, saying: 'If she comes forward, she comes forward with four, and if she goes backward, she goes backward with eight.' The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: 'Do you not see that this one knows what is here? Do not let him enter upon you.' So they veiled themselves from him." It came that the Prophet, peace be upon him, expelled him, and he used to be in Al-Bayda, entering every Friday to ask for food. Perhaps it is best to interpret "those having no physical desire" as those who have no need for women and do not know anything of their affairs, such that their souls do not suggest to them any obscenity, nor do they describe them to non-mahrams. I do not see the sufficiency in "those having no physical desire" by merely lacking need for women, for that does not entirely negate the corruption of displaying adornment, as is not hidden.
Perhaps there is in the report a type of indication toward this. In Al-Minhaj and its commentary by Ibn Hajar, it is stated: "The more correct is that the look of the mamsuh—his penis and testicles having been cut—on the condition that no inclination toward women remains in him at all, and his being Muslim in the case of a Muslim woman, even if he is a non-mahram for a woman characterized by piety, is like the look toward a mahram..." This shows that the example of the mamsuh mentioned previously is not absolute. As for the elderly man and the effeminate one, they, according to the Shafi'is, are not like the mamsuh in looking at non-mahram women. They also graded as correct that the insane must be veiled from, so do not be neglectful. The genitive case of ghayri is, it is said, by way of substitution, not description, because it needs the labor of making "the attendants" not determined like the indefinite, as Al-Zajjaj said, or making ghayri determined by the genitive construction here. There is debate on this. Ibn Amir and Abu Bakr read ghayra with nasb as a state (hal) and exception.
(Or the children who are not yet aware of the private parts of women)—i.e., children who do not know what the awrah is and do not distinguish between it and other things, based on the fact that lam yazharu comes from their saying: "He appeared over the thing," if he gained knowledge of it, so it is made a metonymy for that; or those who have not reached the limit of lust and the ability to have intercourse, based on it being from "he appeared over so-and-so" if he overpowered him, from which is His saying: "(So they became those who overcame)." This includes the child described by the aforementioned quality in this sense, the adolescent who has not shown any desire for women. Some Shafi'i Imams have mentioned that he is like an adult, so it is necessary to veil from him according to the more correct position, like the adolescent who has shown such desire. It also includes one below the adolescent, but who is in such a condition that he recounts what he sees as it is. They mentioned regarding the non-adolescent that if he is in this condition, he is like a mahram; otherwise, he is like one who does not exist, so it is permissible in his presence what is permissible in seclusion, so do not be neglectful.
The apparent meaning is that "the children" is linked to His saying: "(to their husbands)" or to what follows it from its counterparts, not to "the men." The speech of Abu Hayyan is apparent that it is linked to it, but it is nothing. It is a singular noun with the generic al, so it is general. For this reason, as stated in Al-Bahr, it is described with the plural, as if it were said "or the children," as narrated in the codex of Hafsah. Similar to this is their saying: "People are destroyed by the yellow dinar and the white dirham." It is said it is a singular used in place of the plural, and similar to it is His saying: "(Then He brings you out as a child)."
This is challenged by saying that using the singular in place of the plural is not an analogy for Sibawayh, and what is here, according to him, is from the category of the singular defined by the generic al, and it is general by the evidence of the validity of exception from it. The aforementioned verse is possible, according to him, to be based on: "Then He brings each one of you out as a child," as was said regarding His saying: "(And she prepared for them a banquet)," that it is in the meaning of "she prepared for each one of them a banquet," so it is not certain that "a child" in it is of the category that is not an analogy for him. Al-Raghib said: " tifl (child) is applied to the plural as it is applied to the singular," and Al-Jawhari was explicit about that. Some grammarians also said: "It is originally a verbal noun, so it applies to the little and the much." The matter is very clear according to this. 'Awrat is the plural of 'awrah, which in origin is that which one guards against being looked at, and it prevailed in the private parts of a man and a woman. The language of most of the Arabs is to make the waw quiescent in the plural, and this is the recitation of the majority. It is narrated from Ibn Amir that he read 'awarat with a fatha on the waw, and it is famous that moving the waw—and likewise the ya'—in such a plural is the language of Hudhayl ibn Mudrikah. Ibn Khalawayh reported in the book of Shawadh al-Qira'at that Ibn Abi Ishaq and Al-A'mash read 'awarat with fatha, then he said: "And we heard Ibn Mujahid saying: 'It is a solecism (an error).' He only made it a solecism due to the lack of narration, otherwise it has a method in Arabic, for the Banu Tamim say rawdat, jawzat, and 'awarat with fatha in them, and the rest of the Arabs with quiescence." Al-Farra' said: "The Arabs are for alleviating that, except Hudhayl, for they make heavy what was of this type from the ya' and waw stems."
(And let them not strike their feet to make known what they hide of their adornment)—i.e., they should not strike their feet on the ground so that their anklets ring, so that it is known that they are women with anklets, for that is what causes men to feel an inclination toward them and suggests that they have an inclination toward them. Ibn Jarir recorded from Hadrami that a woman made an anklet of silver and set it with beads, then passed by a group and struck her foot, and the anklet fell upon the beads and made a sound, so Allah Almighty revealed: "(And let them not strike...)" etc. Women today are [in the habit of] putting beads and the like in the hollow of the anklet, so when they walk with it—even if softly—it sounds. They have from types of jewelry other than the anklet what also sounds when walking, especially if it is with striking the foot and intensity of tread. Some people have their lust stirred by the rustle of jewelry more than by seeing it. In the prohibition of displaying the sound of jewelry after the prohibition of displaying its essence is the prohibition of displaying the sites of it, which is not hidden. Perhaps one may use this prohibition as evidence for the prohibition of listening to their voice.
What is mentioned in the authoritative books of the Shafi'is, and I am inclined to it, is that their voice is not an awrah, so it is not forbidden to hear it unless one fears temptation from it, and likewise if one takes pleasure in it, as Zarkashi examined. As for the Hanafis, Imam Ibn al-Humam said: "It is stated in Al-Nawazil that the intonation of a woman is an awrah, and for this reason, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: 'The call to prayer is for men, and clapping is for women,' so it is not appropriate for a man to hear her."
Then know that in my view, among the things that are attached to the adornment forbidden to be displayed is what most of the affluent women of our time wear over their garments and veil themselves with when they leave their homes; it is a covering woven of silk with several colors, and it has golden or silver patterns that dazzle the eyes. I believe that their husbands and their likes enabling them to go out in such a way and walking with it among non-mahrams is from a lack of protective jealousy, and the calamity of this has become widespread. Similar to it is what the calamity has also become widespread of: the lack of veiling by most women from the brothers of their husbands, and the lack of concern of their husbands regarding that; often they order them to do so. A woman might veil herself from them after marriage for days until they give her some jewelry or the like, then she appears to them and does not veil from them after. All of that is from what Allah and His Messenger, peace be upon him, did not permit, and such examples are many. There is no power and no strength except by Allah the Exalted, the Almighty.
(And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed)—a change in address, turning it away from the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, to all [the people] by way of generalization to highlight the perfection of care for what is within its scope of the command of repentance, and that it is from the most important of real tasks, that Allah Almighty be the One who commands it, since almost no one among those obligated is free from a type of negligence in establishing the requirements of obligations as they should be, especially in refraining from desires.
Ahmad, Al-Bukhari in Al-Adab al-Mufrad, Muslim, Ibn Marduwayh, and Al-Bayhaqi in Shu'ab al-Iman recorded from Al-Aghar, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, say: "O people, turn in repentance to Allah, for I turn in repentance to Him every day one hundred times." The intent of repentance according to this is repentance for what is in the present. From Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, [it is said] the intent is repentance for what they used to do before, such as casting glances and other things, and although this is erased by Islam, it requires remorse for it and the resolve to refrain from it whenever one remembers it. They said: "This is required of every person repenting from a sin whenever he remembers it." From this, it is known that what many who claim repentance do—of recounting what they did of sins in a way of boasting and enjoying them—is due to the lack of sincerity in their repentance.
In repeating the address with His saying: "(O believers)," is an emphasis of the obligation and a sign that the description of faith is a reason for compliance necessarily. In this is evidence that sins do not take one out of faith. Ibn Amir read ayyuha al-mu'minuna with a damma on the ha'. The reasoning is that it was fatha because it occurred before the alif, so when the alif dropped due to the meeting of two quiescent [letters], its vowel followed the vowel of what was before it. The damma of the ha' which is for alerting after ayyu is the language of Banu Malik, the kin of Shaqiq ibn Salamah. Some stopped with the sukun of the ha' because it was written in the codex without an alif after it. Abu Amr, Al-Kisa'i, and Ya'qub stopped, as in Al-Nashr, with an alif, contrary to the script.
(That you might succeed)—i.e., so that you may attain by that the happiness of both worlds, or [that it is] hoped for your success.
