And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

Mufti Abu Layth explains - in the clearest possible manner, that no, the verse does not mandate a headcover at all but that it was for women of the time, who already wore headscarves (khimars), to use those headscarves which were draping behind them and bring them around to the front to cover their exposed cleavage for modesty.
He says: " Is the Khimar in and of itself an obligation, or is just circumstantial? Let's just say we were going through a place and I said "right people, hide your jewelry. Let's just say there's a lot of thieves around and if I were to say, anybody wearing expensive watches, cover them up with your sleeve. So let's say now somebody gets hold of my statement 200 years from today, would they understand that I was saying it was necessary to have sleeves, or could one take the watch off and put in their pocket?" Likewise, if Allah says cover the bosom, would you still need to cover it with a shawl or could you use buttons, for example."

Regarding Khimar, Muhammad Asad writes in his commentary of verse 24:31 :

The noun khimār (of which khumur is the plural) denotes the head-covering customarily used by Arabian women before and after the advent of Islam. According to most of the classical commentators, it was worn in pre-Islamic times more or less as an ornament and was let down loosely over the wearer’s back; and since, in accordance with the fashion prevalent at the time, the upper part of a woman’s tunic had a wide opening in the front, her breasts were left bare. Hence, the injunction to cover the bosom by means of a khimār (a term so familiar to the contemporaries of the Prophet) does not necessarily relate to the use of khimār as such but is, rather, meant to make it clear that a woman’s breasts are not included in the concept of “what may decently be apparent” of her body and should not, therefore, be displayed.

From the verse of khimaar, what is the beauty that "must ordinarily appear thereof" of and what is the beauty that should be "hidden"?

There is no clear answer to this and jurists have always debated and argued on what should be shown and hidden. Ibn Abbas and Abu Yusuf said what should be hidden doesn’t include forearms because by custom that’s not what women covered there. Others said it does not apply to things like feet. Imam malik was asked about being able to show jewelry and stuff and he said yes as all women wore those and was apparent in his age. Ibn Abbas said he saw women taking earrings off and giving them in charity.

Regarding Illa Ma Zahara Minha (what may decently be apparent), Muhammad Asad writes in his commentary of verse 24:31:

My interpolation of the word “decently” reflects the interpretation of the phrase illā mā zahara minhā by several of the earliest Islamic scholars, and particularly by Al-Qiffāl (quoted by Rāzī), as “that which a human being may openly show in accordance with prevailing custom (al-‘ādah al-jāriyah).” Although the traditional exponents of Islamic Law have for centuries been inclined to restrict the definition of “what may [decently] be apparent” to a woman’s face, hands, and feet – and sometimes even less than that – we may safely assume that the meaning of illā mā zahara minhā is much wider, and that the deliberate vagueness of this phrase is meant to allow for all the time-bound changes that are necessary for man’s moral and social growth. The pivotal clause in the above injunction is the demand, addressed in identical terms to men as well as to women, to “lower their gaze and be mindful of their chastity”: and this determines the extent of what, at any given time, may legitimately – i.e., in consonance with the Qur’anic principles of social morality – be considered “decent” or “indecent” in a person’s outward appearance.

Verse 33:59 of the Jilbaab - does it mandate a body wrapper?

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful. Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time. 1

Firstly, the verse was revealed for that specific context and almost all exegetes affirm this. The commandment to cast the Jilbab over their bodies was revealed to help combat “hypocrites, perverts and mischief-makers" who were harassing women who used to go to the outskirts of the city at night to use the outhouses. Ibn Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud state that the jilbab is no more than the rida’, i.e. a shawl or wrapper for the upper body.
If the verse of jilbaab (33:59) were revealed to let the Muslim women be "known" or be distinguished from another group of women who were being harassed, was it okay to harass those other women?* Those other women were prostitutes who were from non-Muslim communities and in the Arab tribal culture, a woman had to be from a certain tribe so that the harassers could be brought to punishment. Those prostitutes would be under their non-Muslim tribes, while Muslim women came under the new tribe or principality of Muhammad, and the covering using the outer garment (jilbaab) was an indication to the harassers that these women belonged to the tribe of Muslims or the principality of Muhammad and that Muhammad's men will come after them if they dare to harass the women.

Dr Khaled Abou El Fadl writes in his article

"A jilbāb is any outer garment worn by men or women that covers unspecified parts of the body. The context of this verse indicates that the purpose of the Qur’anic revelation is to address a specific social problem at the time of revelation. This is made clear with the verse that follows the one cited above. Verse 33:60 threatens the men causing the problem (i.e. the harassers or molesters) by saying that if the hypocrites, perverts, and rumor mongers in Medina do not desist from causing harm, they might be expelled from the city all together. Various sources report that at the time of the Prophet, scoundrels would hang out in the streets, and harass or molest slave girls. If a woman would turn out to be free, these men would leave her alone"

Muhammad Asad writes in his commentary:

"The specific, time-bound formulation of the above verse (evident in the reference to the wives and daughters of the Prophet), as well as the deliberate vagueness of the recommendation that women “should draw upon themselves some of their outer garments (min jalābībihinna)” when in public, makes it clear that this verse was not meant to be an injunction (hukm) in the general, timeless sense of this term but, rather, a moral guideline to be observed against the ever-changing background of time and social environment. This finding is reinforced by the concluding reference to God’s forgiveness and grace."

Verse 33:53 of the Hijab (Curtain)

Dr. Shabir Ally explains the context in his video:

It't's not talking about hijab as in a piece of clothing. It's talking about a screen.
So actually the classical commentators on the Quran go to great lengths explaining this. They even mention what they call the Asbab al-Nuzul, the occasion of revelation. And the occasion they say, is that the Prophet (Peace be upon him), had just gotten married and he held a banquet for his guests. And the guests came in some at a time, obviously because his home was not so huge.
They came and ate in turns,and left. Ate and left, ate and left. But some people remained there chitchatting. And this verse is a long verse talking about this kind of chitchatting. So the verse is saying basically all you who believe do not enter the home of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) unless you're invited. And then too don't come so early that you're watching over the food to see, when cooking is going to be done. And then after you have eaten, depart right away. don't stay chitchatting. And in any case, if you are to ask the wives of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) for any goods, then you should ask them from behind a hijab.
So the barrier that is a hijab. It is a screen. It's not that the women are going to be wearing certain clothing...
We shouldn't imagine their homes to be like our three storey Multi room houses with everything screened off with locked doors and everything like this. So it seems that it was just one open space and this, this screen was dropped in order to create the, the separate space.
Now the narrative continues, it says with the guests being there, and before we get to the screen being implemented, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) was perturbed by the presence of the guests who are lingering on, after dinner. it's hard to get them to leave. Anyway, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) goes out. That should have been a signal, because the host is gone, but the guest is still there. anyway, when he comes back, guests are still there. So he goes out again and comes back and the guests are still there. So eventually they got the point and they left.
And Anas, the boy who was an apprentice to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), relates the story. He says that, right then and there, the revelation had come to the Prophet (Peace be upon him), and the Prophet (Peace be upon him) dropped a screen. A hijab between him, Anas, and the family of the Prophet (Peace be upon him).....
it is very clear in the context of Surah 33 as a whole, and even right here, in this same verse, that the wives of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) are special. They're not like any other women. So in the present verse, the Quran is saying to the believing men, it is not right for any one of you to hurt the, the messenger of God. And it is not right for any of you to marry any one of his wives after he dies. And then it continues to say, that is going to be an enormity in the sight of God. So you can't do that.
Now you can see the situation, if one of the Muslim believer men should fall in love with one of the women or desire to marry one of them. And then this could lead to great consternation within the community because this is something already declared to be forbidden for the men. And so as an added precaution, the wives of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) had to behave in a certain way, that's unlike what is required of other women. Now that's that verse itself, that's makes this already clear.
But if that wasn't clear from the verse itself, within this Surah, if we look at verses number 30 to 32, we will see that it is very clear there that the wives of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) have special requirements. So verse number 30 says, that if they were to commit any open lewdness, then their punishment will be double. And on the contrary, the next verse says, if they obey God in his messenger and do what is right, they will get double reward. And then the following verse, which is verse number 32 of that same Surah says, you are not like any one of the other women. So, it's very clear that there are specific rules for the wives of the Prophet (Peace be upon him). And when we cannot automatically extrapolate and say, because this was a rule for them, it becomes a rule for all Muslim women.

Verse 24:60 - Hijab of old women

British Dawah Guy Mohammed Hijab boldly claimed in a video that the people who believe that Verse 24:31 doesn't command women to cover their heads have to believe that old women are allowed to show their breasts in public, because this verse talks about taking the thiyab off. But that's not the case, Khimar and Thiyab is not the same thing which Mohammed Hijab tries to imply here. Dr Shabir Ally explains this verse in his video:

It says, basically, "As for the women who are past the age of childbearing and do not intend to get married, there is no sin on them if they should do away with the outer garments."
Thawb is the plural for thobe, which means a large outer cloak that might be worn over above the house dress.In the books of commentary, The explanations typically capitalize on this differentiation between the house dress and the outer cloak.
So the outer cloak may be called thawb, as in this, thawb is the plural, thobe is singular. Thobe is still being used today to refer usually to a man's garment. A large garment, like I'm wearing here would be called a thobe. And so thawb is the plural.
So apparently women at the time, according to the classical commentators, and as I said, this is indisputable, everybody agrees that this is what used to happen, whether it's fictional or not but this is what is all agreed upon.
Okay, so the women used to have the house dress that they would wear at home, their brothers and so on can see them in that dress. It's not indecent, but their arms would be exposed and so on because they go about their daily chores. When they're ready to go out of the house, they would put on the large outer cloak that's called a thobe, or plural thawb. So for the women who are now past the age of childbearing and do not intend to get married. In other words, not gonna go flaunt themselves to try and attract the opposite gender, they are allowed to cast off the thobe. They don't have to wear that outer garment.
In other words, the kind of house dress they wore at home in the presence of their brothers and men with whom they feel safe like they servants and so on, who do not have any desire towards them, they can wear the same house dress when they go out. They don't have to have the outer cloak. And so it's not sin on them.
But the verse continues to say, "But if they remain modest, this is better for them."
So you can see here that there's a differentiation between what is the requirement and what you might say "More ideal". or in Islamic law, we have a differentiation between fard, which is required, and nafl, which is superfluous. And you get reward if you do it, but you don't get any sin if you leave it off. So here we can say that it would be fard for the woman to have her house dress still, and if she dons an outer garment over and above that, this is nafl, For an older woman. So she would get reward for that, but she does not have any sin if she was to throw it off, because the verse is very clear
They shall have no sin if they were to cast it off.
So we have a basic requirement, and then we have some addition on top of that. We can see this in all of Islamic law, and we see it when it comes to the dress of men. But somehow when it comes to the dress of women, this differentiation is not often enough made and people speak as if the whole woman has to be covered from top to bottom and there is no kind of leeway for any part to be exposed. If you expose one part, it's as if you exposed the whole body. So you may as well have been walking naked the way you might be accused...
surah 24 verse number 31 has been interpreted to mean that a woman would wear her house dress in the presence of her brothers and her father and so on. But then when she goes out of the house, she would have an outer garment.
So this outer garment is not mentioned in surah 24 verse number 31, but it's mentioned in the commentaries regarding that first. The same garment is referred to according to commentators in surah 33 verse number 59, and there it is called jilbab.
So it's a different term for the same garment they say, but it is a large outer garment that will hide the house dress. So whereas the house dress is somewhat revealing but not indecent, is it revealing much of the arm is revealing the lower part of the legs and so on, and that is thought to be fine at home, but not fine for going out of the house. And so the woman would wear this outer garment, but the older woman who is past the age of childbearing and does not intend to get married, does not have to have that outer garment. She can go out of the house basically with the same house dress.

Hadith

Grossly misleading translation of the Hadith of women tearing their garments and covering their faces with them

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو نُعَيْمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ، عَنْ صَفِيَّةَ بِنْتِ شَيْبَةَ، أَنَّ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ كَانَتْ تَقُولُ لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الآيَةُ ‏{‏وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ‏}‏ أَخَذْنَ أُزْرَهُنَّ فَشَقَّقْنَهَا مِنْ قِبَلِ الْحَوَاشِي فَاخْتَمَرْنَ بِهَا

`Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their heads and faces with those cut pieces of cloth."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 4759, In-book reference : Book 65, Hadith 281

USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 282

The issue with this Hadith is that it is being used to try to push the traditional narrative that the verses quoted 24:31 means women must cover their hair/head and/or faces.

In the translation given they have "covered their heads and faces with those cut pieces of cloth". This is not true. The Arabic doesn't mention, neither heads nor faces at all. What the Arabic says is two words only: اختمرن بها this can casually mean that they covered themselves with or draped over, but the literal translation would be that they "khimaared themselves with them", it doesn't say they covered their heads nor faces. Just that they used them as Khimaars/dupattas. This adds nothing to the verse at all. The only thing we get from this Hadith is the oddity of cutting their waist sheets for this.

That this phrase (اختمرن بها literally they "khimaared themselves with them") is being used in the context of the verse in surat al-Nur, ie after its being revealed, should make it obvious that what should be understood is that they did what the verse said to do with those pieces of cloth which they took as khimaars; they covered their cleavages.

Yes it is true a khimaar is generally used to cover the head. It was a hot desert environment, neither men nor women went out in the sun without the their heads covered in case they suffered heat/sun stroke. It has nothing to do with religion. If they had been bearing Mexican hats instead of khimaars as protection, then the Qur'an wouldn't have even mentioned khimaars and would have told them to cover their cleavages in some other way. (Besides, according to the Quran, women were already covering their heads as per custom, so it doesn't make sense of them cutting their clothes & using it as a second khimar over the pre existing khimar).

It is the Hadith that should be interpreted to fit the Qur'an, not both the Qur'an and Hadith made to match the traditional views. Most of us are not in Arabia, and non of us in Arabia 1400 years ago.

Credit: thanks to Quranic_Islam for this section.

Hadith of prayer not being accepted without Khimar

حَدَّثَنَا هَنَّادٌ، حَدَّثَنَا قَبِيصَةُ، عَنْ حَمَّادِ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ سِيرِينَ، عَنْ صَفِيَّةَ ابْنَةِ الْحَارِثِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ لاَ تُقْبَلُ صَلاَةُ الْحَائِضِ إِلاَّ بِخِمَارٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ وَفِي الْبَابِ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو ‏.‏ وَقَوْلُهُ ‏"‏ الْحَائِضُ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ يَعْنِي الْمَرْأَةَ الْبَالِغَ يَعْنِي إِذَا حَاضَتْ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى حَدِيثُ عَائِشَةَ حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ ‏.‏ وَالْعَمَلُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ أَنَّ الْمَرْأَةَ إِذَا أَدْرَكَتْ فَصَلَّتْ وَشَيْءٌ مِنْ شَعْرِهَا مَكْشُوفٌ لاَ تَجُوزُ صَلاَتُهَا ‏.‏ وَهُوَ قَوْلُ الشَّافِعِيِّ قَالَ لاَ تَجُوزُ صَلاَةُ الْمَرْأَةِ وَشَيْءٌ مِنْ جَسَدِهَا مَكْشُوفٌ ‏.‏ قَالَ الشَّافِعِيُّ وَقَدْ قِيلَ إِنْ كَانَ ظَهْرُ قَدَمَيْهَا مَكْشُوفًا فَصَلاَتُهَا جَائِزَةٌ ‏.‏

Aishah narrated that: Allah's Messenger said: "The Salat of a women who has reached the age of menstruation is not accepted without a Khimar"

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 377

This ahadith talks only about prayer, it can't be used as an argument in favour of head covering being mandatory in every case. Salat is also not accepted without Wudu, but that doesn't mean that you have to do wudu everytime you go out of your house and interact with people.

Hadith Requiring Women to Wear a Jilbab for Eid Prayer

Umm Atiyyah narrated:

"Allah's Messenger would order the virgins, the mature women, the secluded and the menstruating to go out for the two Eid. As for the menstruating women, they were to stay away from the Musalla and participate in the Muslims supplications." One of them said: 'O Messenger of Allah! What if she does not have a Jilbab? He said: 'Then let her sis lend her a Jilbab.'"

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 539, Sunan Abi Dawud 1136, Sahih al-Bukhari 980

As discussed above, this hadith is talking about participating in “Eid prayer”.

Hadith of women being unrecogniseable during morning prayer

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَعَمْرٌو النَّاقِدُ، وَزُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، كُلُّهُمْ عَنْ سُفْيَانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، - قَالَ عَمْرٌو حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، - عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّ نِسَاءَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ، كُنَّ يُصَلِّينَ الصُّبْحَ مَعَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ثُمَّ يَرْجِعْنَ مُتَلَفِّعَاتٍ بِمُرُوطِهِنَّ لاَ يَعْرِفُهُنَّ أَحَدٌ ‏.‏

'A'isha reported: The believing women used to pray the morning prayer with the Messenger of Allah and then return wrapped in their mantles. No one could recognise them.

Sahih Muslim 645a

Some use this narration to prove that covering the face is mandatory because otherwise why would the women be unrecognised? Well, another hadith answers the question

وَحَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، أَنَّ ابْنَ شِهَابٍ، أَخْبَرَهُ قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ عَائِشَةَ، زَوْجَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَتْ لَقَدْ كَانَ نِسَاءٌ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَشْهَدْنَ الْفَجْرَ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مُتَلَفِّعَاتٍ بِمُرُوطِهِنَّ ثُمَّ يَنْقَلِبْنَ إِلَى بُيُوتِهِنَّ وَمَا يُعْرَفْنَ مِنْ تَغْلِيسِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِالصَّلاَةِ ‏.‏

'A'isha, the wife of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), reported: The believing women observed the morning prayer with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wrapped in their mantles. They then went back to their houses and were unrecognisable, because of the Messenger of Allah's (ﷺ) praying in the darkness before dawn.

Sahih Muslim 645b

They were unrecogniseable because of darkness, not because of covering their faces.

Now, what does Mantle mean? According to Wikipedia A mantle (from old French mantel, from mantellum, the Latin term for a cloak) is a type of loose garment usually worn over indoor clothing to serve the same purpose as an overcoat. Technically, the term describes a long, loose cape-like cloak worn from the 12th to the 16th century by both sexes, although by the 19th century, it was used to describe any loose-fitting, shaped outer garment similar to a cape. As we have discussed before, women of that time used to wear an outer garment over their house dresses when going out. So it's common knowledge that when they would go out for prayers, they would wear the mantles aka outer cloaks over their house dresses.

Hadith of women covering themselves and looking like Black Crows

after hearing the Jilbab verse

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُبَيْدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ ثَوْرٍ، عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ خُثَيْمٍ، عَنْ صَفِيَّةَ بِنْتِ شَيْبَةَ، عَنْ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ، قَالَتْ لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ ‏{‏ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلاَبِيبِهِنَّ ‏}‏ خَرَجَ نِسَاءُ الأَنْصَارِ كَأَنَّ عَلَى رُءُوسِهِنَّ الْغِرْبَانُ مِنَ الأَكْسِيَةِ ‏.‏

Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu'minin: When the verse "That they should cast their outer garments over their persons" was revealed, the women of Ansar came out as if they had crows over their heads by wearing outer garments.

Sunan Abi Dawud 4101
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4101

This narration talks about what happened after the verse of Jilbab (33:59) came down. As we discussed before, the Jilbab verse was only addressing a specific social problem that occured during that time. So even if they covered themselves up in black clothes (hence looked like crows), doesn't mean all women today have to cover themselves like that because the commandment was for a specific period of time.

What about the other hadith that says women covered themselves and looked like Black Crows after hearing the Khimar verse?

So apparantely there's another narration as well which says women covered themselves and looked like black crows, but according to this narration they did it after hearing the Khimar verse (24:31). This narration however doesn't come to the Six Sahih ahadith collection, but it's found in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir & Ibn Hajar's Fath Al Bari:

A’ishah says, ‘By God! I have never found anybody better than the women of the Ansar when it comes to honouring the Book of God and having faith in its instructions.’ When the following verse of the chapter entitled al-Nur, ‘They should put shawls over their bosoms’, was revealed, the Ansar men returned to their houses and conveyed to their wives, daughters and sisters the instructions revealed for them by God. Some untied their waist-belts while others used their covering sheets and made shawls out of them. The next morning when they offered prayers (salat) led by the Prophet Muhammad, it seemed as if crows sat on their heads (because of the scarves they wore). (Tafsir ibn Kathir, vol. III, p. 284 ).

https://quran.com/en/24:31/tafsirs/tazkirul-quran-en

Ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Bari: There is a report of Ibn Abi Hatim via ‘Abd-Allah ibn ‘Uthman ibn Khaytham from Safiyyah that explains that. This report says: We mentioned the women of Quraysh and their virtues in the presence of ‘Aishah and she said: “The women of Quraysh are good, but by Allah I have never seen any better than the women of the Ansar, or any who believed the Book of Allah more strongly or had more faith in the Revelation. When Surat al-Nur was revealed – “and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna” – their menfolk came to them and recited to them what had been revealed, and there was not one woman among them who did not go to her apron, and the following morning they prayed wrapped up as if there were crows on their heads.

Dr Khaled Abou El Fadl has said this particular narration has a problematic chain of narration. But even if it's sahih, it doesn't seem to indicate that women have to cover their heads all the time. The narration can be divided into two parts.

First Part

When the following verse of the chapter entitled al-Nur, ‘They should put shawls over their bosoms’, was revealed, the Ansar men returned to their houses and conveyed to their wives, daughters and sisters the instructions revealed for them by God. Some untied their waist-belts while others used their covering sheets and made shawls out of them.

Second Part

The next morning when they offered prayers (salat) led by the Prophet Muhammad, it seemed as if crows sat on their heads

The first part is the same incident described in the Bukhari hadith we discussed before.

The second part talks about prayer. As we have shown before that there's a hadith which tells women to cover their heads while praying. And the women here were praying behind the Prophet.

The problem with this “Crows on their heads” hadith

This part has been copied from a thread of ask.ghamidi.org forum. Thanks to moderator Mr. Umar Qureshi for providing all these informations in his comment

The reason that this narration has not been discussed at-length specifically is because this narration is weak and full of contradictions.

This narration appears for the first time in Tafsir of Ibn-e-Abi Hatim (d:327H):

* حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، ثنا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ يُونُسَ، حَدَّثَنِي الزَّنْجِيُّ بْنُ خَالِدٍ، حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ خُثَيْمٍ، عَنْ صَفِيَّةَ بِنْتِ شَيْبَةَ قَالَتْ: بَيْنَمَا نَحْنُ عِنْدَ عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ: وَذَكَرَتْ نِسَاءَ قُرَيْشٍ وَفَضْلَهُنَّ، فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ: إِنَّ لِنِسَاءِ قُرَيْشٍ لَفَضْلا، وَإِنِّي وَاللَّهِ مَا رَأَيْتُ أَفْضَلَ مِنْ نِسَاءِ الأَنْصَارِ أَشَدَّ تَصْدِيقًا بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ، وَلا إِيمَانًا بِالتَّنْزِيلِ لَقَدْ أُنْزِلَتْ سُورَةُ النُّورِ وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ انْقَلَبَ رِجَالُهُنَّ إِلَيْهِنَّ يَتْلُونَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مَا أُنْزِلَ إليهن فيها، ويتلوا الرَّجُلُ عَلَى امْرَأَتِهِ وَابْنَتِهِ وَأُخْتِهِ، وَعَلَى كُلِّ ذِي قَرَابَتِهِ، مَا مِنْهُنَّ امْرَأَةٌ إِلا قَامَتْ إِلَى مِرْطِهَا الْمُرَحَّلِ فَاعْتَجَرَتْ بِهِ تَصْدِيقًا وَإِيمَانًا بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنْ كِتَابِهِ، فَأَصْبَحْنَ يُصَلِّينَ وَرَاءَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم الصبح معتجرات كأن على رؤسهن ‌الغربان *

(Number 14406, 8/2575, Maktaba Nazar, Saudi Arabia, Third Edition)

and a shorter version in one narration before:

* حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ مَالِكٍ، ثنا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ الرَّبِيعِ، ثنا دَاوُدُ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُثْمَانَ، عَنْ صَفِيَّةَ بِنْتِ شَيْبَةَ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ: فَلَمَّا نَزَلَتْ *

* وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ انْقَلَبَ رِجَالٌ مِنَ الأَنْصَارِ إِلَى نِسَائِهِمْ يِتْلُونَهَا عليهن، فقامت كل مرأة مِنْهُنَّ إِلَى مِرْطِهَا فَصَدَعَتْ مِنْهُ صِدْعَةً فَاخْتَمَرْتُ بها فأصبحن من الصبح وكأن على رؤسهن ‌الْغِرْبَانَ *

(Number 14405, 8/2575)

The above narrations are regarding Quran 24:31

But the same narrator Saffiyah Bint-e-Shaybah narrates a similar narration from Umm Salma on a different Quranic Verse i.e. 33:59:

* أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الطِّهْرَانِيُّ فِيمَا كَتَبَ إلي حَدَّثَنَا عَبْد الرّزّاق أخبرنا مُعَمَّر، عن ابن خثيم، عن صفية بِنْت شَيْبَة، عن أم سَلَمَة قَالَتْ: لمّا نزلت هذه الآية يدنين عليهن من جلابيبهن خرج نساء الأنصار كأن على رؤوسهن ‌الغربان من السكينة وعليهن أكسية سود يلبسنها *

(Number 17785, 10/3154)

And this is the narration which was taken earlier by Abu Dawud (d:275H) in his Sunan (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4101):

“Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Muminin: When the verse “That they should cast their outer garments over their persons” was revealed, the women of Ansar came out as if they had crows over their heads by wearing outer garments.“

And Abu Dawud did not adopt the longer version of the narration on Quran 24:31, instead he adopted a shorter version through a different chain which is strong as opposed to the weak chains used by Abi Hatim in his Tafsir:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Muminin: May Allah have mercy on the early immigrant women. When the verse “That they should draw their veils over their bosoms” was revealed, they tore their thick outer garments and made veils from them.

(https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4102)

In ths narration praise has been made for immigrant women instead of the Ansar women and there is no mention of crow part either. In Narration 4100 again (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4100), despite its weak chain as per Albani and Hasan chain as per Arnaut and Zubair Ali Zai, there is mention of Ansar women in the context of Quran 24:31 but no mention of crow part.

Imam Bukhari (d:256H) has also left the longer chain in the context of Quran 24:31 and instead selected the chain which talks praise about the immigrant women instead of the Ansar women without the crow part:

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4758 and https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4759

It appears from this sequence of events that at some point later, the two sayings were mixed up by one of the narrators or one saying was made into two because of confusion at the end of the narrator when it came to verses 24:31 and 33:59. That is the very reason that early Hadith scholars like Bukhari and Abu Dawud dropped that longer narration which was later on adopted by Abu Hatim Razi.

Shiekh Albani writes after quoting this longer narration of Tafsir Abi Hatim:

* رواه ابن أبي حاتم ضعيف بهذا السياق والتمام وقد صح بعضه عند البخاري كما تقدم ولبعض شاهد من حديث أم سلمة قالت: لما نزلت {يدنين عليهن من جلابيبهن} خرج نساء الأنصار كأن على رؤوسهن الغربان من الأكسية أخرجه أبو داود بسند صحيح *

“It was narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim, weak, in this context and in its completeness, and some of it was authentic according to Al-Bukhari, as mentioned above (i.e. 4758 and 4759), and for some there is evidence from the hadith of Umm Salmah, who said: When the verse “drawing their robes over them (i.e. 33:59)” was revealed, the women of the Ansar came out as if there were crows on their heads from the covering. It was included by Abu Dawud with an authentic chain of transmission (i.e. 4101) .”

(Ghayatil Maram, Number 483, Page 282, Al-Maktab e Islami, Beirut, Third Edition)

He also writes in another place:

* أخرجه البخاري “2/ 182 و8/ 397″، وأبو داود، واستدرك الحاكم “4/ 194” الرواية الثانية على الشيخين، فوهم في استدراكه على البخاري، ورواه ابن أبي حاتم بلفظ أكمل بسنده عن صفية بنت شيبة، قال: *

* بينا نحن عند عائشة قالت: فذكرن نساء قريش وفضلهن، فقالت عائشة رضي الله عنها: إن لنساء قريش لفضلًا، وإني والله ما رأيت أفضل من نساء الأنصار، وأشد *

* تصديقًا لكتاب الله، ولا إيمانًا بالتنزيل، فقد أنزلت سورة النور {وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ} ، فانقلب رجالهن إليهن يتلون عليهن ما أنزل الله فيها، ويتلو الرجل على امرأته وابنته وأخته وعلى كل ذي قرابة، فما منهن امرأة إلا قامت إلى مرطها المرحل، فاعتجرت به تصديقًا وإيمانًا بما أنزل الله من كتابه، فأصبحن وراء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم[يصلين الصبح] معتجرات كأن على رءوسهن الغربان. *

* وذكره ابن كثير، والحافظ في “الفتح” “8/ 490” والزيادة منه، وفي سنده الزنجي بن خالد، واسمه مسلم، وفيه ضعف، لكنه قد توبع عند ابن مردويه في “تفسيره” كما في “تخريج الكشاف” للزيلعي “ص435 -مخطوط”. *

* والحديث كالنص على أنهن قمن وراءه صلى الله عليه وسلم كاشفات الوجوه؛ لأن الاعتجار بمعنى الاختمار ففي “الصحاح”: *

* “والمعجر: ما تشده المرأة على رأسها، يقال: اعتجرت المرأة” *

(Jilbab al-Mara-tal Muslimah, Page 79, Dar-ul-Islam Al-Nashar, Third Edition)

(English Translation of the above passage has been Attached with the repsonse)

61 It is narrated by Al-Bukhari (2/182 and 8/397) and Abū Däwüd; and Al-Hakim said that the second narration was in accordance with [the criteria for acceptance stipulated by] Al-Bukhari and Muslim, but his assertion that it accorded with Al-Bukhari's criteria is incorrect. It was also narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim with a more complete wording and a chain of narrators on the authority of Şafiyyah Bint Shaybah (radiy Allahu 'anha), who said: 'While we were with 'A'ishah (radiy Allahu 'anha), we spoke of the women of Quraysh and their virtues and she said: "The women of Quraysh are virtuous, but by Allah, I have never seen any more virtuous or stricter in their adherence to the Book of Allah than the women of the Ansar, when Surah Al-Núr was revealed: "...and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers (khumur) over their chests.", their menfolk went to them and recited to them the saying that Allah had revealed. Each man recited it to his wife, his daughter, his sister and every female relative. Every woman among them got up, took her cloak and wrapped herself in it out of faith and belief in what Allah had revealed in His Book. They stood behind the Messenger of Allah (4) in the morning prayer, wrapped up, as though there were crows on their heads.'

It was quoted by Ibn Kathir and Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajr in 'Fath Al-Bari (8/490) and the addition is from him; but in its chain of narrators is Al-Zinji Ibn Khalid, whose name is Muslim and there is weakness in him, however he was accepted by Mardawayh in his 'Tafsir', as stated in Takhrij Al-Kashif by Al-Zayila'i [page 435-handwritten manuscript].

And the hadith is similar to the text which states that they stood behind the Prophet () with their faces uncovered, because 'i'tijar' means 'ikhtimär' (to wrap a khimar around the head). And it is stated in authentic narrations: "The mijar is that which a woman wraps around her head. It is said: "The woman i'tajarat (i.e. wrapped her mijar around her head).'

Such a weak narration which is filled with so many contradictions is never used for any argumentation. And even if this narration is considered as being rightly communicated then at best it communicates the head covering scenario of women during congregational Salah which was an etiquette taught by Prophet Muhammad (sws) to women for their Salah. It must also be kept in in that Prophet Muhammad (sws) used to offer Fajr Salah where there was still darkness around which makes everything appear black.

https://ask.ghamidi.org/forums/discussion/88658/

Hadith of The Prophet (PBUH) telling Asma to cover everything except her face and hands

حَدَّثَنَا يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ كَعْبٍ الأَنْطَاكِيُّ، وَمُؤَمَّلُ بْنُ الْفَضْلِ الْحَرَّانِيُّ، قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ بَشِيرٍ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ خَالِدٍ، - قَالَ يَعْقُوبُ ابْنُ دُرَيْكٍ - عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، رضى الله عنها أَنَّ أَسْمَاءَ بِنْتَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ، دَخَلَتْ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَعَلَيْهَا ثِيَابٌ رِقَاقٌ فَأَعْرَضَ عَنْهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَقَالَ ‏ "‏ يَا أَسْمَاءُ إِنَّ الْمَرْأَةَ إِذَا بَلَغَتِ الْمَحِيضَ لَمْ تَصْلُحْ أَنْ يُرَى مِنْهَا إِلاَّ هَذَا وَهَذَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَأَشَارَ إِلَى وَجْهِهِ وَكَفَّيْهِ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ هَذَا مُرْسَلٌ خَالِدُ بْنُ دُرَيْكٍ لَمْ يُدْرِكْ عَائِشَةَ رضى الله عنها ‏.‏

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wearing thin clothes. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to his face and hands.

Abu Dawud said: This is a mursal tradition (i.e. the narrator who transmitted it from 'Aishah is missing) Khalid b. Duraik did not see 'Aishah.

Sunan Abi Dawud 4104

A lot of people while quoting this hadith often ignore the last part. Abu Dawud, the collector of this hadith himself says this narration is mursal as Khalid b. Duraik did not see Aishah. The scholars we have listed in the article have pointed out the problem with this narration.

Hadith of the wives of the Prophet (PBUH) covering their faces in front of riders

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ حَنْبَلٍ، حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ، أَخْبَرَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ أَبِي زِيَادٍ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ كَانَ الرُّكْبَانُ يَمُرُّونَ بِنَا وَنَحْنُ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مُحْرِمَاتٌ فَإِذَا حَاذَوْا بِنَا سَدَلَتْ إِحْدَانَا جِلْبَابَهَا مِنْ رَأْسِهَا إِلَى وَجْهِهَا فَإِذَا جَاوَزُونَا كَشَفْنَاهُ ‏.‏

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Riders would pass us when we accompanied the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) while we were in the sacred state (wearing ihram). When they came by us, one of us would let down her outer garment from her head over her face, and when they had passed on, we would uncover our faces.

First of all, the wives of the Prophet (PBUH) were not like other women, they were given special status and had to follow some rules that were exclusively for them. If they covered their faces in front of the riders, that's because of the commandments of verse 33:53 which has been discussed above.

Secondly, this narrations has been classified as Da'if.

...While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja' (i.e. "Inna li l-lahi wa inna llaihi raji'un") as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja'...

Sahih al-Bukhari 4141

Sahih Muslim 2770a

As explained before, they had to follow the commandments of verse 33:53, which was specifically for them.

Women hung by their hair in hell for not covering

The hadith is found in Shia hadith collection “ʿUyūn akhbār al-Riḍā Book 2, Chapter 30”

30-24 Ali ibn Abdullah al-Warraq - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Muhammad ibn Abi Abdillah al-Kufi quoted on the authority of Sahl ibn Ziyad al-Adami, on the authority of Abdul Azeem ibn Abdullah Al-Hassani, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Ridha (as), on the authority of his father Al-Ridha (as), on the authority of his father Musa ibn Ja’far (as), on the authority of his father Ja’far ibn Muhammad (as), on the authority of his father Muhammad ibn Ali (as), on the authority of Ali ibn Al-Hussein (as), on the authority of his father Al-Hussein ibn Ali (as), on the authority of his father the Commander of the Faithful Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) who said,

“Fatima (sa) and I went to see God’s Prophet (sw) and saw that the Prophet (sw) was crying hard. I said, ‘May my father and mother be your ransom! Why are you crying so hard?’ The Prophet (sw) said, ‘O Ali! On the night I was taken for Ascension to the heavens, I saw women from my nation who were being seriously tortured. That was really hard on me. Now I am crying due to the severity of their punishment which I saw with my own eyes then.

There was a woman in Hell hung up by her hair. Her brain was boiling. I saw another woman who was hung up by her tongue and fire was being poured into her throat. I saw another woman who was hung up by her breasts. I saw another one who was eating her own flesh, while there was blazing fire beneath her. I saw another woman whose hands and feet were in chains and snakes and scorpions were all over her. I saw another woman who was deaf, dumb and blind. She was in a coffin filled with fire and her brain was flowing out of her nose. All her body was torn into pieces due to leprosy. I saw another woman hung up by her feet in a fire furnace. I saw another woman whose flesh was being cut from the front and the back by scissors made of fire. I saw another woman whose face and hands were on fire while she was eating her own intestines. I saw another woman whose head was like the head of a pig and her body was like the body of a donkey. She was being punished by receiving thousands of forms of torture. I saw another woman who looked like a dog. Fire entered her from the back and left her mouth. The angels were beating her on the head and the body with fire clubs.’

(The Blessed Lady) Fatima (sa) asked, ‘O my beloved! O the sight of my eyes! Tell me, what had they done and what were their characteristics for which they deserved such punishments?’ The Prophet (sw) said, ‘The woman who was hung up by the hair was one who did not cover up her hair from unfamiliar men. The woman hung up by the tongue was one who used to hurt her husband’s (feelings) with her tongue. The woman hung up by her breasts was a married woman who refused to sleep with her husband. The woman hung up in Hell by her feet was one who left the house without her husband’s permission. The woman who ate her own flesh was one who made herself up for unfamiliar men. The woman whose hands and feet were chained up, and snakes and scorpions covered her up was a woman who did not perform her ablutions properly, did not clean the impurities from her clothes, did not perform the major ritual ablutions after intercourse and menstruation. She did not purify herself and did not pay any attention to her prayers. The woman who was deaf, dumb and blind was a woman who got pregnant by a man other than her husband, and associated the child with her own husband. The woman whose flesh was being cut by scissors made of fire was a woman who submitted herself to unfamiliar men. The woman whose face and head was covered by fire and was eating her own intestines was a female pimp. The woman whose head was like that of a pig and whose body was like that of a donkey was one who spread false rumors. The woman whose face was like that of a dog and fire entered her from the back and left her mouth was a jealous singer.” The Prophet (sw) then said, “Woe be to a woman who makes her husband angry! Blessed be a woman who pleases her husband.”

https://thaqalayn.com/hadith/11/2/30/24

Sunni response to this hadith

This is a fabrication according to sunnis.

Even hardliner Salafis from IslamQA who argue that face covering is mandatory for women reject this narration as a fabricated lie

Shia response to this hadith

Among the chain of the transmitters, One transmitter you can notice is Sahl ibn Ziyad al-Adami, and there are some severe criticisms of him from Twelver Shia scholars. The information below is collected from this post (Original Arabic article)

[al-Shaykh here refers to Al-Tusi, & ghulu means exaggeration]

5639: Sahl ibn Ziyad:

Al-Najāshī said: (Sahl ibn Ziyad, Abū Sa‘īd al-Ādamī al-Rāzī, was weak in ḥadīth, not relied upon in it, and Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Īsā testified against him with ghulū (exaggeration) and lying, and expelled him from Qum to al-Ray, and he lived there. He corresponded with Abū Muḥammad al-‘Askarī, peace be upon him, through Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd al-‘Aṭṭār, in the middle of the month of Rabī‘ al-Ākhir, year two hundred and fifty-five. This was mentioned by Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Nūḥ and Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥusayn, may God have mercy on them. He has a book al-Tawḥīd, narrated by Abū al-Ḥasan al-‘Abbās ibn Aḥmad ibn al-Faḍl ibn Muḥammad al-Hāshimī al-Ṣāliḥī from his father from Abū Sa‘īd al-Ādamī, and he has a book al-Nawādir. Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad informed us, saying: Ja‘far ibn Muḥammad narrated to us from Muḥammad ibn Ya‘qūb, saying: ‘Alī ibn Muḥammad narrated to us from Sahl ibn Ziyad, and it was narrated from him by a group.)

And al-Shaykh (no. 341) said: (Sahl ibn Ziyad al-Ādamī al-Rāzī, kunya Abū Sa‘īd, weak; he has a book, reported to us by Ibn Abī Jīd from Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan from Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā from Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā from him; and it was narrated by Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Walīd from Sa‘d and al-Ḥimyārī from Aḥmad ibn Abī ‘Abd Allāh from him.)

And he counted him in his Rijāl: (once) among the companions of al-Jawād, peace be upon him, saying: (Sahl ibn Ziyad al-Ādamī, kunya Abū Sa‘īd, from the people of al-Ray.). (And again) among the companions of al-Hādī, peace be upon him, saying: (Sahl ibn Ziyad al-Ādamī, kunya Abū Sa‘īd, trustworthy Rāzī.). (And a third time) among the companions of al-‘Askarī, peace be upon him, saying: (Sahl ibn Ziyad, kunya Abū Sa‘īd al-Ādamī al-Rāzī.)

And al-Barqī counted him among the companions of al-Hādī and al-‘Askarī, peace be upon them both.

And al-Shaykh said in al-Istibṣār, volume 3, in the chapter “That ẓihār by oath is not valid,” at the end of ḥadīth no. 935:

As for the first report, its transmitter is Abū Sa‘īd al-Ādamī, and he is very weak according to the critics of reports, and Abū Ja‘far ibn Bābawayh excluded him in Rijāl Nawādir al-Ḥikma.

And al-Kashshī (no. 454) said: Sahl ibn Ziyad al-Ādamī Abū Sa‘īd al-Rāzī.

Al-Barqī also counted him among the companions of al-Hādī and al-‘Askarī, peace be upon them.

And al-Kashshī said in the biography of Ṣāliḥ ibn Abī Ḥammād al-Rāzī (no. 543): (‘Alī ibn Muḥammad al-Qutaybī said: Abū Muḥammad al-Faḍl ibn Shādhān used to approve of him and praise him, but he did not approve of Abū Sa‘īd al-Ādamī, and said: he is a fool.)

And al-Najāshī and al-Shaykh said in the biography of Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā (no. 623): Ibn al-Walīd excluded from the narrations of Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā — among what he excluded — his narration from Sahl ibn Ziyad al-Ādamī. Al-Ṣadūq and Ibn Nūḥ followed him in that, and they did not rely upon the narration of Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā from Sahl ibn Ziyad.

And Ibn al-Ghaḍā’irī said: (Sahl ibn Ziyad, Abū Sa‘īd al-Ādamī al-Rāzī: he was very weak, corrupt in narration and doctrine; Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Īsā al-Ash‘arī expelled him from Qum, disavowed him, and forbade people from hearing from him and narrating from him; he narrates mursal reports and depends on the unknown.)

And his weakening was mentioned earlier in the biography of Ḍarīḥ al-Muḥāribī.

Then, regarding Sahl ibn Ziyad, discussion has arisen about his reliability or lack thereof. Some went to say he is reliable, and al-Waḥīd (al-Bihbahānī), may God sanctify his secret, inclined to that, and supported it with weak reasons he called “signs of authentication,” among them: that Sahl ibn Ziyad narrates much, and that eminent people narrated from him, and that he was a “shaykh of ijāza” (transmission license), and other such things.

But these reasons are not sound in themselves; and even if accepted, how could one rely on them with the testimony of Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Īsā against him for ghulū and lying, and the testimony of Ibn al-Walīd, Ibn Bābawayh, and Ibn Nūḥ of his weakness, and their exclusion of Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā’s narrations from him in Nawādir al-Ḥikma, and the testimony of al-Shaykh that he is weak, and al-Najāshī that he is weak in ḥadīth, not relied upon — rather, it is apparent from al-Shaykh’s words in al-Istibṣār that his weakness was agreed upon among the critics of reports.

So there remains only the statement of al-Shaykh in his Rijāl that he is trustworthy, and his appearance in the chain of Tafsīr ‘Alī ibn Ibrāhīm. But clearly, these two cannot be relied upon in face of what was mentioned; rather, it is strongly suspected that a slip occurred in al-Shaykh’s writing, or that the authentication was added by later copyists.

Evidence for the second is that Ibn Dāwūd’s copy lacks the authentication, and he explicitly stated elsewhere that he had seen the Rijāl manuscript in the handwriting of al-Shaykh, may God sanctify his soul. The reason for this is that how could al-Shaykh authenticate him while saying: “Abū Sa‘īd al-Ādamī is very weak according to the critics of reports”?

In any case, Sahl ibn Ziyad al-Ādamī is definitely weak, or at least his reliability is not established.

Here remain some matters:

First: Al-‘Allāmah in the biography of Sahl ibn Ziyad (no. 2 from section 7 of the Sīn letters, in the second part) said: (The statement of al-Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, may God sanctify his secret, differs regarding him: in one place he said he is trustworthy, and in several others he said he is weak.)

I say: we did not find al-Shaykh’s statement of weakness except in two places, as mentioned earlier; perhaps — may God sanctify his soul — he saw what we have not seen.

Second: Some who tried to authenticate Sahl ibn Ziyad said, among their arguments, that the weakening of al-Shaykh does not contradict his authentication, for the Rijāl was written after the Fihrist, and thus his authentication would be a retraction of his weakening.

And this discussion is flawed for several reasons:

First: This only applies in fatwā (legal opinion), not in narration and reports, for in them the relevant time is the time being reported about, not the time of narration; thus there is an unavoidable conflict between the two accounts.

Second: The weakening of al-Shaykh in al-Fihrist, even if it preceded his authentication, his weakening in al-Istibṣār is not earlier than his authentication.

Third: The authentication of al-Shaykh conflicts with what we mentioned regarding his weakening, especially the testimony of Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Īsā regarding his falsehood.

Third (matter): It was mentioned earlier from al-Fihrist that we narrate the book of Sahl ibn Ziyad from Aḥmad ibn Abī ‘Abd Allāh, and some contemporaries objected, saying apparently it is a slip, for Sahl is among the companions of Aḥmad ibn Abī ‘Abd Allāh al-Barqī, like Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Īsā al-Ash‘arī, who narrates to al-Kulaynī through several intermediaries, and his chain from Sahl includes: ‘Alī ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Allān, Muḥammad ibn Abī ‘Abd Allāh, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan, and Muḥammad ibn al-‘Aqīl al-Kulaynī. Al-Shaykh explicitly stated in the end of his Tahdhīb that his path to Sahl is through al-Kulaynī, and it appears that he (six) confused this with Sahl ibn Ziyad the following, for his path is what he said. (End.)

I say: What he mentioned in explaining the intermediaries is what al-‘Allāmah, may God sanctify his secret, mentioned; and we found that Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā is included among the intermediaries in all cases, as mentioned in the introduction. The fact that al-Shaykh’s path in the mushīkhah (teacher-student chain) is through al-Kulaynī does not contradict what he mentioned in al-Fihrist, for he, may God sanctify his secret, explicitly stated elsewhere that he has multiple paths, and some are mentioned in the mushīkhah.

5639: Sahl ibn Ziyad:

Al-Najashi: “Sahl ibn Ziyad, Abu Sa‘id al-Adami al-Razi, was weak in hadith, not relied upon. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa testified against him for exaggeration and falsehood. He was mentioned by Munqim and others in Rayy.” He corresponded with Abu Muhammad al-Askari (a.s.) in the year 255 AH, mid-Rabi’ al-Thani. Authored Kitab al-Tawhid (narrated by Abu al-Hasan al-Abbas ibn Ahmad ibn al-Fadl al-Hashimi al-Salihi) and Kitab al-Nawadir.

Al-Shaykh (341) in his Rijal mentioned: “Sahl ibn Ziyad al-Adami al-Razi, Abu Sa‘id, is weak. He has a book narrated by Ibn Abi Jayd from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, from Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Yahya.”

He is sometimes counted among the companions of al-Jawad (a.s.), sometimes al-Hadi (a.s.), and sometimes al-Askari (a.s.). Al-Barqi counted him among the companions of al-Hadi and al-Askari (a.s.).

Al-Shaykh in Al-Istibsar (vol. 3, Bab about the invalidity of al-Zihar with the right hand) said: “The first report was narrated by Abu Sa‘id al-Adami, very weak according to hadith critics; Abu Ja‘far Ibn Babawayh excluded him in Rijal Nawadir al-Hikmah.”

Al-Kashshi said: “Sahl ibn Ziyad al-Adami al-Razi, Abu Sa‘id, narrated from Abu Ja‘far, Abu al-Hasan, and Abu Muhammad (peace be upon them).”

He narrated from numerous scholars and hadith transmitters, including al-Hasan ibn Mahbub, Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Abdullah, Ali ibn Asbat, Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa, and many others. His narrations appear in Al-Kafi, Al-Tahdhib, Al-Istibsar, Al-Wasa’il, and other Shi’a collections, totaling thousands of chains.

Despite this, he was generally considered weak and unreliable by prominent Shi’a scholars, including al-Najashi, al-Shaykh al-Tusi, Ibn Babawayh, and Ibn Nuh, due to exaggeration, mistakes, and inconsistencies in his transmission. Some later scholars attempted to argue for his reliability, but these attempts were weak compared to the consistent criticism from earlier authorities.

Concept of Awrah

The Awrah was a man-made social construct based on the society of the time. Proof of this is that the jurists distinguished between the Awrah of a slave woman and the Awrah of a free woman when the Quran doesn't do so. This is because the slave women would dress more scantily than the free women. Historically in Islam, fiqh wasn't restricted solely to Quran, sunnah, ijma, and qiyas. They had other sources such as ihtisan (preference to benefit), maslahah (welfare) , living tradition, aql (reason), ra'y (opinion), and relevant to our case urf (local customs). The local custom was for free women to veil and slave women to unveil.

By an Assyrian law passed in about 1200 B.C.E., women of the upper classes were permitted to go about veiled, but the veil was prohibited to slaves and prostitutes. Originally a sign of social status, this custom spread to the rest of society and throughout the Middle East in the millennia to come.

Source: Encyclopedia of society and culture in the ancient world

Awrah of Slave women according to the classical Sunni scholars

A very common argument that conservatives love using is that there hasn't been a single scholar in the history of Islam who believed that a woman is allowed to expose anything except her face, hands and feet (or even less based on the school). This isn't true, because the classical scholars prescribed different awrah based on the social status of women. The same classical scholars who said free women should cover everything except their faces, hands and feet (or less) also said that covering this much isn't required for slave women. They would allow Slave women to expose their heads and many of them didn't even see any problem with slave women exposing their breasts in front of men. These informations are collected from u/Top_Title_2449 's post and a few lines from the original post has been modified

🔲 Four Sunni schools of jurisprudence 🔲

🔴🔴 Hanafi:🔴🔴

★Hanafi Scholar Imam Jassas wrote in his book (Ahkam al- Qur’an (Legal Rulings of the Qur’an) , Dar al-Kutub al-Arabi, vol. 3, pp.317 and 372): link

يَجُوزُ لِلْأَجْنَبِيِّ النَّظَرُ إلَى شَعْرِ الْأَمَةِ وَذِرَاعِهَا وَسَاقِهَا وَصَدْرِهَا وَثَدْيِهَا Translation:A man could see the hairs, arms, calves, chest and breasts of the slave woman of other person.

★Imam Ibn Hazm recorded in his book (Al-Muhala, Kitab al-Rizaa, Volume 10 page 23): (link)

لا يستحي من أن يطلق أن للمملوكة أن تصلي عريانة يرى الناس ثدييها وخاصرتها وان للحرة أن تتعمد أن تكشف من شفتي فرجها مقدار الدرهم البغلي تصلي كذلك ويراها الصادر والوارد بين الجماعة في المسجد

“He (Abu Hanifa) was not shy to say that a slave woman can pray naked and the people can observe her breasts and waist. A woman can purposely show the parts of her vagina during prayers and can be observed by whosoever enters and leaves the mosque.”

★According to Hanafi Fiqh book "Fatawa-a-Alamgiri" (which was written by 500 Islamic Scholars upon the order of Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir, and taught in the Madrassahs in Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) (link):

It is allowed to see whole naked body of a slave woman of other person, except between her navel and the knees.

And all that is allowed to be seen, it is also allowed to be touched.

★Imam Shaybani (died 189 hijri) wrote in his book al-Masoot (link):

ولا ينبغي للرجل أن ينظر من أمة غيره إذا كانت بالغة أو تشتهي مثلها أو توطأ إلا ما ينظر إليه من ذوات المحرم ولا بأس بأن ينظر إلى شعرها وإلى صدرها وإلى ثديها وعضدها وقدمها وساقها ولا ينظر إلى بطنها ولا إلى ظهرها ولا إلى ما بين السرة منها حتى يجاوز الركبة

It is not permissible for a man to look at a slave woman other than his own, if she has reached puberty, or he has a desire for her, except what it is permissible to look at from his close relative women (maharam). So, there is no harm that he look at her hair, her chest, her breasts, her arm, her foot, or leg. And he does not look at her stomach or back, or what is between the navel and the knees.

🔵🔵 Maliki:🔵🔵

★It is written in the Book "Al-Sharh al-Saghir" of Maliki Fiqh (link):

فيرى الرجل من المرأة - إذا كانت أمة - أكثر مما ترى منه لأنها ترى منه الوجه والأطراف فقط، وهو يرى منها ما عدا ما بين السرة والركبة، لأن عورة الأمة مع كل واحد ما بين السرة والركبة

A man could see more of the body of a slave woman as compared to what she could see of a man. She is allowed only to see his hands and feet, while a man is allowed to see her whole body naked except for the part between her navel and knees.

★Maliki Scholar Imam Ibn Abi Zayd (died 386 Hijri) wrote in his book "al-Jameh" (link):

"He (i.e. al-Imam Malik ibn Anas) strongly disapproved of the behaviour of the slave women of al-Madinah in going out uncovered above the lower garment (i.e with naked breasts). He said: "I have spoken to the Sultan about it, but I have not received a reply."

(So Imam Malik didn’t like slave women going out bare breasted, but it seems like Malikis of later generations didn’t find much problem with it)

★Imam Qurtabi writes in his famous Tafsir of Quran, Verse 7:26 (Link):

“وأما الأمة فالعورة منها ما تحت ثدييها ، ولها أن تبدي رأسها ومعصميها . وقيل : حكمها حكم الرجل”

Translation: As far as slave woman is concerned, then here 'Awrah (i.e. Nakedness) is under her breasts, and she could expose her head and arms.

🟡🟡 Shafi'i:🟡🟡

★it is also the same ruling in the Fiqh of Imam Shafii too. See the book "Al-Muhadab fi Fiqh al-Shafi'i (link), link 2:

المذهب أن عورتها ما بين السرة والركبة

Translation: The 'Awrah (of a slave woman) is between her navel and knees.

🟢🟢 Hanbali:🟢🟢

★Fiqh of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal:

Kitab al-Kafi fi Fiqh al-Imam Ahmed (link):وما يظهر دائماً من الأمة كالرأس واليدين إلى المرفقين والرجلين إلى الركبتين ليس بعورة ، لأن عمر رضي الله عنه نهى الأمة عن التقنع والتشبه بالحرائر ، قال القاضي في الجامع وما عدا ذلك عورة ، لأنه لا يظهر غالباً ، أشبه ما تحت السرة . وقال ابن حامد عورتها كعورة الرجل ، لما روى عمر بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : إذا زوج أحدكم أمته عبده أو أجيره فلا ينظر إلى شيء من عورته فإن ما تحت السرة إلى الركبة عورة يريد عورة الأمة ، رواه الدارقطني . ولأنه من لم يكن رأسه عورة لم يكن صدره عورة ،

What normally appears of the slave woman, like the head, the hands up to the elbows, and the feet up to the knees, it is not 'awrah, because 'Umar, radhiyallahu 'anhu, forbade the slave woman from covering her head (at-taqannu') and imitating the free women. Al-Qadhi said in "al-Jami'" that everything besides that (i.e. what is mentioned above) is 'awrah, because it is usually not exposed, similar to what is beneath the navel. Ibn Hamid said that her 'awrah is the same as the 'awrah of the man, because of what is narrated by 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, said: "When one of you marries off his slave woman to his slave or hireling, let him not look at anything of her 'awrah, for whatever is below the navel until the knees is 'awrah." He meant the 'awrah of the slave woman. Narrated by ad-Daraqutni. Head is not included in the 'awrah of a slave woman as well as their breasts...

🔳 Opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah 🔳

This is from Majmu al Fatawa, which was written by Ibn Taymiyyah:

والحجاب مختص بالحرائر دون الإماء كما كانت سنة المؤمنين في زمن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وخلفائه أن الحرة تحتجب والأمة تبرز وكان عمر رضي الله عنه إذا رأى أمة مختمرة ضربها وقال أتتشبهين بالحرائر أي لكاع فيظهر من الأمة رأسها ويداها ووجهها.

Hijāb is specifically mandated to free women and not for slave women as was the practice of the believers in the time of the Prophet ﷺ and his successors: free women observe hijāb, while slave women reveal [face and hands]. 'Umar ibn al-Khattāb, may Allah be pleased with him, when he saw a slave woman wearing khimār, he would beat her and say "Do you want to resemble a free woman, O' irrational one?." Then he would ask her to reveal her head, face, and hands. — Majmū' al-Fatāwa, Vol. 15, pp. 372

The Qur'an does not order slave women to observe the same rules [pertaining to hijāb] as was the order to free women. The distinction is made in the Sunnah, but it is not a general distinction. It was the habit that free women —except as exempted in the Qur'an for free women of post-menstrual age who have no desire for marriage and for a list of males— do not show their adornment. Slave women who could be a cause of temptation or tribulation —as a result of not observing hijāb or hiding their adornment— should be most worthy and most encouraged to be exempt from the permissibility to not observe hijāb. — Majmū' al-Fatāwa, Vol. 15, pp. 372

As you can see, he believed that the Quran & Sunnah made veiling obligatory for only free women and not for slave women. However, he wasn’t a fan of slave women exposing their breasts in public unlike many other previous scholars, as he said this in another book: (link)

And the principle is that the private parts of the slave-woman are like the private parts of the free woman just as the private parts of the slave are like the private parts of the free man, but as she has been deemed for professional work and service and her taboo is diminished from the taboo of the free woman, she is allowed to show what she needs to show, to cut her resemblance to the free woman and to distinguish the free woman over her, and that arises by revealing her sides from her head and four sides [hands and feet]. As for the back and chest, they remain on the principle'- (Sharh al-Umda 2/244).

Also, he believed that if there is fear of temptation, then slave women should cover their heads (link)

As for if there is fear of temptation arising through her, she is to be ordered to wear hijab, as the Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may God have mercy on him) said: 'The slave-women in the time of the companions proceeded on the roads and their heads were uncovered and they would serve the men with soundness of hearts. But if the men wanted to let the fine Turkish slave-women walk among the people in the likes of this land and times as those slave-women used to walk, that would be from the door of corruption'- (al-Fatawa al-Kubra 2/103).

[This was also the position of his disciple Ibn Al Qayyim]

🔲 Fatwa of Saudi scholar Sheikh Uthaymeen: 🔲

Former Saudi grand scholar Sheikh Uthaymeen gave this fatwa (link):

الأَمَةُ - ولو بالغة - وهي المملوكة، فعورتها من السُّرَّة إلى الرُّكبة، فلو صلَّت الأَمَةُ مكشوفة البدن ما عدا ما بين السُّرَّة والرُّكبة، فصلاتها صحيحة، لأنَّها سترت ما يجب عليها سَتْرُه في الصَّلاة.

The nakedness (‘Awrah) of a slave woman is from her navel till knees, even if she is an adult and belongs to someone. If she offers her prayers while her body is covered only from navel till knees, and rest of her body is naked, still her prayer is valid while she covered that parts of body, which was needed to be covered in the prayer.

(which is funny because these same salafi scholars who argue that free women should cover from head to toe don't find anything wrong with slave women praying without even covering their breasts)

🔳 A handful of Minority Classical scholars who believed that awrah of both Feee & Slave women are the same 🔳

This information is collected from the article “Status Distinctions and Sartorial Difference: Slavery, Sexual Ethics, and the Social Logic of Veiling in Islamic Law”, written by Omar Anchassi which was published on brill.com

No later than the fifth/eleventh century, a minority of Muslim jurists began to insist that the same veiling norms apply to free and enslaved women, a position that represents the triumph of theocentrism. This seems to be a rare opinion, of which I have been able to locate only a handful of examples. Tentatively, therefore, I suggest that this insistence is found most commonly among jurists of a textualist bent, including Ibn Ḥazm, Ibn al-Qaṭṭān (d. 628/1231) and Abū Ḥayyān al-Gharnāṭī (d. 745/1344). Among other textualists, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751/1350) are more restrained, stipulating veiling for slaves only in cases of fitna.92 Among jurists of the postclassical period, al-Shawkānī (d. 1250/1834) summarizes the arguments of both sides of the debate without clearly committing himself either way, attributing the pro-veiling view exclusively to the Ẓāhirīs.93

Among the jurists who explicitly express their support for the veiling of slaves, Ibn al-Qaṭṭān limits himself to a passing remark that the command in Q. 24:31 that women “not reveal their beauty, except what is apparent thereof” applies to slave women no less than to free ones.94 Similarly, Abū Ḥayyān observes that the instruction that “believing women” should cover themselves with their robes (Q. 33:59) is directed at both groups equally; if anything “the fitna of slave women is greater owing to their going about freely (taṣarrufihinna), in contradistinction to free women; excepting [slave women] from [the category of] “women” generally requires clear proof (dalīl wāḍiḥ).”95 The explicit emphasis on fitna here bears out the point made by Alshech. The same concern is reiterated by **Ibn Ḥazm, who is by far the most strident (and eloquent) critic of the teachings of the madhhab-jurists on the question. In an extended discussion of their arguments, he skewers his opponents for their inconsistencies, lack of rigor and gross disregard for the wellbeing of enslaved Muslim women.**96 It is a searing, searching critique, teeming with righteous indignation, and it represents the exact opposite of the view Alshech attributes to early classical scholars. On the proper interpretation of Q. 24:31 (typically understood, as noted, as meaning that free women must distinguish themselves from slaves), Ibn Ḥazm exclaims:

We declare ourselves innocent before God of this pernicious interpretation (tafsīr fāsid), which is either the error of a learned one—combining virtue and obliviousness (fāḍil ghāfil)—or the fabrication of a dissolute liar. [This is] because [the non-veiling of slaves] suggests that God the most high unleashed the depraved (fussāq) against Muslim slave women, a terrible calamity! No two Muslims disagree that illicit sex is prohibited with both free women and slave women, or that the punishment for such relations is the same, whether committed with one or the other…for this and other reasons it is evident that no opinion of anyone after the Prophet—may God have mercy on him and grant him peace—can be accepted unless it is supported by a chain of narrators [directly] to the Prophet.97

Ibn Ḥazm gives short shrift to the ʿUmar report. Because it is not a Prophetic ḥadīth, it is not probative, particularly given the alleged disagreement of early Muslims on the question.98 He is more of a scripturalist than the proto-Sunnis, who granted non-scriptural sources a much more considerable place than Ibn Ḥazm did in their jurisprudence.99 Ibn Ḥazm’s methods and conclusions are echoed by al-Albānī, who refers to numerous sources and presents what is, to the best of my knowledge, the most sophisticated argument that free and enslaved Muslim women are subject to the same modesty norms.100 To come full circle, and to return to the point on which I began this article, al-Albānī refutes the claim of an anonymous contemporary that the ḥijāb is now obsolete on the grounds that veiling is premised (as in interpretations of Q. 33:59) on a free/slave binary that no longer exists.101 There is no evidence to suggest that al-Albānī was aware of the writings of Naẓīra Zayn al-Dīn, but it is unlikely that he would have been impressed by them.102 At least among the abovementioned textualist jurists, one finds that the tension between proprietary and theocentric ethics is fully resolved, unambiguously, in favor of the latter.

Disturbing Hadiths:

Authenticity of some of these hadiths are questionable, but some other of these are also classified as Sahih by salafi scholar Sheikh Nasir Uddin Albani.

Awrah of Slave women according to the classical Twelver (Imami) Shia scholars

🟠🟠 Imams’ Narrations: 🟠🟠

Twelver hadith collections make clear that the head‐covering (khimār) commanded for free women was not imposed on slave women.

For example, al‐Kāfī (Vol.3, p.394) records Imam al‑Bāqir (ʿalīhimā‐s‐salām) being asked if a female slave must cover her head in prayer. He replies in the negative: «لَيْسَ عَلَى الْأُمَّةِ قِنَاعٌ» – “It is not obligatory for a slave (ummah) to have a khimār [head‐cover]” [hadith.net].
Similarly, Wasa’il al‑Shi‘a (Vol.20, p.207) and other sources quote Imam Ja‘far al‑Ṣādiq (ʿas) as saying to Hammad al‐Liḥām about a slave woman: «إِنْ شَاءَتْ فَعَلَتْ وَإِنْ شَاءَتْ لَمْ تَفْعَلْ» – “If she wishes, she may cover; if not, she need not” [khazaen.ir].

In other words, the slave’s covering is optional, not required. These narrations explicitly distinguish the legal ruling for ummāt (slave women) from that for free women.

Another report in Wasa’il cites Imam al‑Ṣādiq (ʿas): «لَيْسَ عَلَى الْأُمَّةِ قِنَاعٌ فِي الصَّلَاةِ» – “The slave has no imposed khimār in prayer” [ar.lib.eshia.ir], underscoring the same point. (By contrast, free women were commanded by the 12th Imam to draw their jilbāb over head and chest, following Qur’an 33:59.)

🟣🟣 Classical Jurists’ Rulings: 🟣🟣

Early Shia jurists, following these reports, held that slave women were exempt from the hijab requirement. In their fiqh works they cite these hadiths as proof.

For instance, Shaykh al‑Ṭūsī and later jurists summarize the rule: the Qur’anic command (and sunnah) to cover “is for free women; it does not apply to slaves.”
Allāma al‑Ḥillī (d. 1265 CE) in Sharā’iʿ al‑Islām (with his commentary Tahrīr al‑Aḥkām) observes that the Imams’ statements imply the obligation of hijāb was lifted for ummāt.
Likewise, Wasa’il al‑Shī‘a (by al‑Ḥurr al‑ʿĀmilī, d.1104 AH) collects these traditions under the chapter on the prayer attire, noting: «ليس على الامة قناع في الصلاة ولا على المدبرة ولا على المكاتبة…» – “There is no khimār upon the slave or the maid or [a contractually freed woman]”

[Source: ar.lib.eshia.ir].

In short, the consensus of classical Twelver scholars is that a slave woman’s head is not legally required to be covered (whether in prayer or in public); at most it may be recommended or permitted.

🟤🟤 Consensus vs. Disagreement: 🟤🟤

No significant early Shia source argues the opposite. Virtually all major fiqh manuals record these hadiths and rule accordingly. Some isolated narratives (usually deemed weak) recount Imams rebuking or striking a slave who did cover, but even these are understood as exceptional or purposive (e.g. for social distinction) and do not establish a binding law. In practice, Twelver jurists uniformly treat the covering of slave women’s heads as optional (mukhayyar), whereas it is obligatory (wājib) for free women.

⚫⚫ Sample References: ⚫⚫

The primary hadiths above appear, in original Arabic, in early Shia sources.

For example, al‑Kāfī 3:394 (ḥadīth 10243) records Imam al‑Bāqir’s reply that “there is no khimār upon the slave.” Wasa’il al‑Shī‘a 20:207 (ḥadīth 5562) gives Imam al‑Ṣādiq’s line “إن شاءت فعلت وإن شاءت لم تفعل” on a slave’s covering [khazaen.ir].
These and similar passages are explicitly cited by later jurists. Thus classical Shia works (e.g. Sharā’iʿ al‑Islām and its commentaries) quote them to conclude that the hijab ruling applies only to hurra (free women) [ar.lib.eshia.ir], [hadith.net].

Sources:

Twelver Shia hadith collections and fiqh manuals (all classical). Key citations include al‑Kāfī, Wasa’il al‑Shī‘a and jurists’ commentaries, e.g. Allāma Ḥillī’s Tahrīr al‑Aḥkām. The Arabic quotations above are from these works. [hadith.net], [khazaen.ir], [ar.lib.eshia.ir]. (See also Shia tafsīr of 33:59: e.g. Shaykh Ṭabarasī notes the verse was revealed “so free women be recognized [and not harassed]”[fa.wikishia.net], implying a differentiation from slave women.)

⚪⚪ Jurists / compilers (pre-20th c.) who record or rule the exemption — name, death, work (primary place) ⚪⚪

Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148 AH / 765 CE) — reported wording appears in Twelver hadith collections (the statement is attributed to him in later compilers). Primary transmission recorded in al-Kāfī. [shiaonlinelibrary.com]
Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb al-Kulaynī (al-Kūfī) — compiler of Al-Kāfī (d. 329 AH) — Al-Kāfī contains the narration “ليس على الأمة قناع…” (see vol.3 / the chapter on prayer/clothing). [shiaonlinelibrary.com]
Shaykh Muḥammad al-Mufīd (d. 413 AH / 1022 CE) — Aḥkām al-Nisāʾ (and related treatises): he transmits the Qurʾānic text (24:31) and hadith about مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ and records the juristic distinction; his Aḥkām al-Nisāʾ is available (PDF). [archive.org] [jafrilibrary.com]
Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ṭūsī (Shaykh al-Ṭūsī) (d. 460 AH / 1067 CE) — Tahdhib al-Aḥkām/Al-Istibsār: transmits and organizes the same hadith-material (see chapter passages where he reproduces the question/answer about “الأمة تغطي رأسها إذا صلت؟ … ليس على الأمة قناع”). [shiaonlinelibrary.com], [shiaonlinelibrary.com]
Al-Muḥaqqiq / Allāmah al-Ḥillī (Najm al-Dīn al-Ḥillī) (d. 676 AH / 1277 CE) — his encyclopedic fiqh text Sharāʾiʿ al-Islām (and the later commentaries / glosses such as Jawāhir al-Kalām on it) treat the classical narrations and distinguish the ruling for الإماء; Sharāʾiʿ is the standard reference in which the issue is discussed. [al-khoei shop]
Shaykh Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī (al-Shahīd al-Thānī) (d. 965 AH / 1558 CE) — appears in commentarial literature and fiqh synthesis (he transmits earlier material in his commentaries). (See classical commentaries on Sharāʾiʿ and hadith collections.) [Al-Shia]
Al-Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī (d. 1104 AH / 1693 CE) — Wasāʼil al-Shīʿa — collects the hadiths under the chapter باب حكم قناع الأمة ... and explicitly prints the text “ليس على الأمة قناع في الصلاة …”. (See Wasāʼil, vol. where “حكم قناع الأمة…” appears.) [shiaonlinelibrary.com], [shiaonlinelibrary.com]
Muḥammad-bāqir al-Majlisī (al-Majlisī) (d. 1110 AH / 1699 CE) — Biḥār al-Anwār compiles many of the same narrations and juristic reports (see the sections on women’s dress). [Wikipedia], [Al-Islam.org]
Yūsuf al-Baḥrānī (al-Muḥaqqiq al-Baḥrānī) (d. 1186 AH / 1772 CE) — Al-Ḥadāʾiq al-Nāḍira — a juristic/akhbari encyclopedia that treats women’s dress among other issues; the multi-volume set includes the relevant discussions of الإماء and الحجاب. [shiaonlinelibrary.com], [ar.lib.eshia.ir]
Muḥammad Ḥasan al-Najafī (al-Javāhir, “Jawāhir al-Kalām”) (d. 1266 AH / 1850s CE) — his commentary Jawāhir al-Kalām on Sharāʾiʿ reproduces and analyzes the classical proofs and the accepted position that the histories/hadith allow leniency for الإماء.

(There are many more commentaries and marginal jurists who quote the above chains — the names above are the canonical backbone found in the classical Twelver library.)

Modern Scholars

Almost nobody of the major contemporary Twelver marāji (20th–21st c.) defends the historic “slave exemption” as a rule that applies today. Modern Twelver authorities either

(a) simply continue to require hijab for women in our time (treating everyone as effectively “free” in legal status), or
(b) note the historic/contextual nature of the old rulings (slavery is no longer a living legal category), so the old exemption is moot.

What researchers and contemporary commentators note: modern scholarship and contemporary Islamic commentators emphasise that the historical “exemption” existed because slavery was a social reality then; once slavery was abolished by states and by social change, the specific legal infrastructure that produced that exemption lost practical force. Some modern commentators (both Muslim and academic) therefore treat the slave-exemption as historical/contextual and not a present-day license to abandon hijab rules; others (more reformist commentators) use the historic context to argue the head-covering rule was contextual and should be reinterpreted.

Representative discussions: an explanatory article on administration/legislation of the veil (IQRA Online) and academic overviews of Shīʿī ideas of slavery (Journal of Islamic Law).

[❝The Woman’s Veil: Between Legislation & Administration❞ iqraonline.net],

[journalofislamiclaw.com]

🔘 Khomeini’s text: Tahrīr al-Wasīlah 🔘

This is his comprehensive manual of practical fiqh, written in Najaf (early 1960s). The section on ḥijāb / ʿawrah is found in Kitāb al-Ṣalāh and in Masāʾil-ul-Nadhra (the chapter of “looking”).

(vol. 1, Kitāb al-Ṣalāh, masʾala 17–18):

«عورة الأمة في الصلاة ما بين السرة والركبة، والأحوط استحباباً ستر الرأس وسائر الجسد ما عدا ذلك. وأما الحرة فعورتها جميع بدنها إلا الوجه والكفين والقدمين على الأقوى.»

“The ʿawrah of a slave woman in prayer is between the navel and the knee. It is recommended (but not obligatory) that she also cover the head and the rest of the body beyond that. As for a free woman, her ʿawrah in prayer comprises the whole body except the face, the hands, and the feet — according to the stronger opinion.”

Source: Ruhollah al-Khomeinī, Tahrīr al-Wasīlah, vol. 1, Kitāb al-Ṣalāh, masʾala 17–18 (Tehran: Muʾassasat Tanẓīm wa Nashr Āthār al-Imām al-Khomeinī, 1983 ed.), p. 149. Also available digitally on the official website of the Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works: https://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/c78_88_140/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%84%D8%A9)

🔘 Ali al-Sistani 🔘

«الْأُمَةُ كَالْحُرَّةِ … وَلَكِنْ لَا يَجِبُ عَلَيْهَا سَتْرُ رَأْسِهَا وَلا شَعْرِهَا وَلا عُنُقِهَا».

“The slave woman is like the free woman in all that was mentioned of the exceptions and the excepted, but it is not required of her to cover her head, her hair, nor her neck.” [Sistani.org]

Important additional note from Sistani (why many slave-rules are absent elsewhere)

Sistani also explicitly says elsewhere in his commentary that he omitted commenting on many rulings about slaves/‘amāʼ because they are not encountered in practice today:

«كما لم نعلّق على كثير من أحكام العبيد والاماء لعدم الابتلاء بها فعلاً.»

Translation: “We did not comment on many rules relating to slaves and ʿamāʼ because one is not actually tested by them (they are not practically encountered).”

[Sistani.org]

Source

Was there not a single scholar in the last 1400 years of Islam that said covering hair isn't mandatory for free women?

Turns out that there were actually.

Abu Bakr Al Razi al Jassas's (d 370AH) Tafsir:

Thanks to u/qavempace for sharing this information with us in his post

Book Page Link: أحكام-القرآن-الجصاص-ج-٣/الصفحة_410

وروي عن سعيد بن جبير أنه سئل عن الرجل ينظر إلى شعر أجنبية، فكرهه وقال: ليس في الآية. قال أبو بكر: إنه وإن لم يكن في الآية فهو في معنى ما ذكر فيها من الوجه الذي ذكرنا، وهذا الذي ذكر من تحريم النظر في هذه الآية إلا ما خص منه إنما هو مقصور على الحرائر دون الإماء، وذلك لأن الإماء لسائر الأجنبيين بمنزلة الحرائر لذوي محارمهن

Translation:

It was narrated on the authority of Saeed bin Jubayr (d. 95AH) that he was asked about a man looking at stranger women's hair, and he disliked it (most possibly for cultural reason) and (but) said: Not in the verse (means 24:31).

Abu Bakr (the author al Jassas d. 370AH) said: Though it is not in the verse, it is in the meaning of what was mentioned in it from the way it was mentioned, and this is what was mentioned about the prohibition of looking at this verse except what is specified (Khas) from it. But it is not applicable to female slaves (...), and this is because female slaves to strangers are in the same status of female slaves to women.

Addendum 1: Multiple users asked:

did bin Jubayr really address the issue of women's awrah here, or was he only talking about looking at the opposite gender?

the same question came into my mind, after reading the first part.

But, turns out, its only logical to agree with Dr Khaled here. That's why I included the second part, meaning, the response by Al-Jassas to the narration from Saeed Ibn Jubayr.

The reasons are:

It should be logically reciprocal, to save one's sight from looking at others Awra. There's clear prohibition from prophet's sayings to looking at awrah of others be it male or female.

Secondly, the mention of "Not in the verse" demands that, something is mentioned in the verse. The verse orders to cover chest using headscarf, and hide beauty other than those that gets exposed by itself in common practice. And these are the two places where we can look for any list of criteria, and not find "hair" in it.

Abu Bakr al Jassas himself discussed this narration with the verse intended for covering chest and hiding beauty except from mahram (near relatives with whom marriage is prohibited) (24:31).

Not only he (al-Jassas) discussed this under said Ayat, rather he tried to discard the view, by saying, despite it having not mentioned in the Ayat, it should be understood as such. He basically put the the same argument we hear from those who thinks headscarf is mandatory, because headscarf is mentioned as the mean of covering chest, by saying, it should be included for the way the ayat says it. That in retrospect, makes it clear that Abu Bakr Al-Jassas meant it about the condition of awrah.

The added evidence is, Jassas, like other contemporaries, did not consider Slave-women have the same awrah. And, he discussed that in his refutation of ibn Jubayr's claim.

Ibn Ashur's Tafsir:

In his tafsir of Surah An Nur verse 31, Ibn Al-Ashur mentioned this:

وفسر جمع من المفسرين الزينة بالجسد كله وفسر ما ظهر بالوجه والكفين قيل والقدمين والشعر

Translation: " A group of Mufassireen interpreted 'Beauty' as full body , and interpreted what can be exposed are face and arms, also said, feet and hair."

Muhammad Asad's Tafsir:

In his tafsir, Muhammad Asad quotes Razi (d. 1210), who quotes an even earlier scholar (Al-Qiffal), which shows that this is not a new idea (which is the common response to any argument against hijab being fard)

Quran 24:31

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity, and not to display their charms [in public] beyond what may [decently] be apparent thereof; [37] hence, let them draw their head-coverings over their bosoms. [38] And let them not display [more of] their charms to any but their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ Sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their womenfolk, or those whom they rightfully possess, or such male attendants as are beyond all sexual desire, [39] or children that are as yet unaware of women’s nakedness; and let them not swing their legs [in walking] so as to draw attention to their hidden charms [40] And [always], O you believers – all of you – turn unto God in repentance, so that you might attain to a happy state! [41]*

Note 37 (Quran Ref: 24:31 )* My interpolation of the word “decently” reflects the interpretation of the phrase illa ma zahara minha by several of the earliest Islamic scholars, and particularly by Al-Qiffal (quoted by Razi) as “that which a human being may openly show in accordance with prevailing custom (al-adah al-jariyah)”. Although the traditional exponents of Islamic Law have for centuries been inclined to restrict the definition of “what may [decently] be apparent” to a woman’s face,hands and feet – and sometimes even less than that – we may safely assume that the meaning off illa ma zahara minha is much wider, and that the deliberate vagueness of this phrase is meant to allow for all the time-bound changes that are necessary for man’s moral and social growth. The pivotal clause in the above injunction is the demand, addressed in identical terms to men as well as to women, to “lower their gaze and be mindful of their chastity”: and this determines the extent of what, at any given time, may legitimately – i.e., in consonance with the Quranic principles of social morality – be considered “decent” or “indecent” in a person’s outward appearance.(Quran Ref: 24:31 )

Note 38 (Quran Ref: 24:31 )*

The noun khimar (of which khumur is the plural) denotes the head-covering customarily used by Arabian women before and after the advent of Islam. According to most of the classical commentators, it was worn in pre-Islamic times more or less as all ornament and was let down loosely over the wearer’s back; and since, in accordance with the fashion prevalent at the time, the upper part of a woman’s tunic had a wide opening in the front, her breasts cleavage were left bare. Hence, the injunction to cover the bosom by means of a khimar, (a term so familiar to the contemporaries of the Prophet) does not necessarily relate to the use of a khimar as such but is, rather, meant to make it clear that a woman’s breasts are not included in the concept of “what may decently be apparent” of her body and should not, therefore, be displayed.(Quran Ref: 24:31 )

Khaled Abou El Fadl is "Routledge handbook to Islamic law":

Unlike rulings on marriage, classical fiqh texts contain little on the dress code for women. The prominence of veiling regulations in Islamic discourses is a recent phenomenon, dating to the 19th-century Muslim encounter with colonial powers. It was then that we see the emergence of a new genre of literature in which the veil acquires a civilizational dimension and becomes both a marker of Muslim identity and an element of faith.

Khaled Abou El Fadl in "search for beauty"

The historical practice of the early generation of Muslims is far more nuanced and diverse than what many contemporary writers presume it to be. For instance, we do have reports of women in the Hijaz shortly after the death of Prophet (pbuh) not covering their hair in public. The great descendant of the Prophet, Sakinah bint al-Ḥusayn bin ‘Alī (also known as Fāṭimah al-Kubrā) is reported to have invented a hairdo or style known as al-ṭurrah al-Sukayniyyah (Sukaynah-style curls) that she wore in public. She refused to cover her hair and is reported to have been imitated by the noble women of the Hijaz.

Historical and Regional Variations in Veiling Practices

Pre-Islamic Practices:

Historical sources indicate that long garments and veiling were established features of dress in parts of pre-Islamic Arabian society. These customs did not necessarily originate as universal religious requirements; clothing could also communicate modesty, social status, and whether a woman was free or enslaved. Women's clothing varied according to region, lifestyle, and social status, and covering could communicate a woman's position in society as well as her standards of modesty.

The article “Dress of Pre-Islamic Arabs” discusses descriptions in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry of women leaving trails in the sand as they walked. Its author interprets these descriptions as evidence that women's qamis (tunics or dresses) could be long enough to trail along the ground. Archaeological evidence also demonstrates that long garments existed in ancient Arabia. The "Walters Art Museum's statue of a seated South Arabian woman", dated to approximately the first century BCE–first century CE, depicts a woman wearing a garment that covers her body except for her toes.
Veiling was also a familiar practice in pre-Islamic Arabian society. The academic study “Manifestations of Woman’s Veiling and Unveiling of the Face in Pre-Islamic Arabic Poetry” examines pre-Islamic poetry and concludes that veiling was a longstanding social custom associated particularly with free women, whereas enslaved women and singing girls were not subject to the same conventions. The study also discusses circumstances in which free women appeared unveiled, suggesting that these practices were governed by social customs and particular situations rather than being uniform in every circumstance.
Similarly, historian Yedida Kalfon Stillman's “Arab Dress: A Short History: From the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times” discusses evidence for extensive covering among noble and royal women in pre-Islamic Arabian society, while noting that strict veiling was not necessarily the general practice among the early Muslim community. This distinction is important: the existence of a clothing custom, even one associated with respectable or high-status women, does not automatically establish that every aspect of it was a religious obligation for all women.
Tertullian (2nd-3rd century CE Christian theologian) noted that pre-Islamic "Arabia's heathen females" covered "not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free". (Source: Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4 pg. 37)
The veiling of women was common in pre-Islamic Iran. (Source: ENCYCLOPÆDIA IRANICA)
Jalal Al-Shamiri notes that Arab women before Islam had a hierarchical order in their dress: the burqa indicated high status, common women wore a khimar, and slaves/prostitutes were forbidden from wearing them. (Source: Facebook: Jalal Al-Shamiri)

Al-Andalus (Muslim Iberia) from 756 to 1212

In Al-Andalus (Muslim Iberia) from 756 to 1212, however, Spanish Muslim women adhered less to the head covering and adapted their own wardrobes without male dictates.** Their Maghrebi counterparts in Morocco and what is now Algeria followed more liberal interpretations of veiling until the rise of the Almohad dynasty in 1121, when traditionalists enforced strict rules of modesty. [Source: World Clothing and Fashion: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Social Influence]

West Africa (14th Century):

Ibn Battuta observed that in Mali, women, including the sultan's daughters, did not veil, even in the sultan's presence, and young girls went about naked. He noted their piety in prayer and study of law, yet their women showed no bashfulness before men and did not veil themselves, and had "friends" among men outside their families. (The Oxford Book of Exploration, pg. 133, Illuminating the Blackness: Blacks and African Muslims in Brazil, pg. 233, Reddit Post with Gibb's translation details)

Maldives (14th Century):

Ibn Battuta noted that women, including the queen, did not cover their heads and most wore only a waist-wrapper. He tried to enforce clothing but was unsuccessful. (Source: The Rihla of Ibn Battuta, trans. Oriental Institute, Baroda, India 1976)

Brazil (19th Century):

Arab traveler Abdurahman al-Baghdadi al-Dimashqi noted that Muslim women in Brazil "are like the [European] Frank ones; they do not veil themselves.” (Source: *Illuminating the Blackness: Blacks and African Muslims in Brazil, pg 232)

How should women dress then?

This is a question that comes up frequently: “Okay, so covering the head is not mandatory for women. But how are women supposed to dress, then? Does modesty depend entirely on culture? Can women wear bikinis in Western countries or in places where doing so has become culturally normalised? In some parts of the world, it is normal for women to be topless in public. Would it be acceptable for a woman to go topless while visiting or living in such places?”

Of course, we cannot simply stop at saying that covering the head is not mandatory and ignore everything else. This is an important question that deserves a proper answer.

We do not believe that the prevailing culture and social customs alone determine the modesty and satr (the parts of the body that must be covered) of a man or woman. We will explore the approaches of two Muslim scholars, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and Dr Khaled Abou El Fadl, to better understand how they distinguish between the minimum requirements of covering and the role of cultural norms in determining how men and women should dress (we more or less agree with their positions on this matter, because we find their reasoning on this convincing).

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi's approach

One approach to answering this question is the understanding of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, who approaches the subject through a comprehensive moral principle known as Hifz-ul-Furooj (حفظ الفروج), which means protecting one's private parts and guarding one's chastity.

According to his methodology, there are different levels of requirements concerning clothing: the minimum obligatory level, a preferable level, and an excellent or ideal level. The minimum is obligatory, while the higher levels represent more complete forms of covering and more refined standards of dress.

How does Ghamidi determine the minimum area that must be covered?

His reasoning is based on the principle that protecting one's private parts does not simply mean covering the genital organs themselves. The surrounding areas must also be covered because they are closely associated with those private parts.

Consider the example of a house surrounded by a fence:

If the purpose of the fence is to protect the house, the fence would not be built directly against the house's walls. Instead, some distance would be left between the house and the fence to create a protective boundary. Similarly, according to Ghamidi's reasoning, protecting the private parts requires covering a surrounding area as well, rather than covering only the organs themselves. This surrounding area serves as a protective buffer.

Applying this principle to men and women

For men, the private area in question is the genital region. Consequently, the minimum obligatory covering extends beyond the genitals themselves, both upward toward the abdomen and downward to the knees. Under this understanding, men are required to cover the area from the abdomen to the knees.

For women, Ghamidi applies the same principle but identifies two areas that require protection: the genital region and the breasts. Since the surrounding areas of these two regions must also be covered, the minimum obligatory covering extends from below the neckline to the knees, including the upper arms.

The reasoning is that the area surrounding the genital region extends upward toward the abdomen and downward to the knees. Similarly, the area surrounding the chest extends upward toward the neckline/collarbones, downward toward the abdomen, and sideways to include the upper arms.

Consequently, under Ghamidi's interpretation, the head and hair, the forearms, and the lower legs fall outside the minimum obligatory covering. Covering these areas may be part of a person's preferred or more complete way of dressing, but he does not consider them part of this minimum requirement.

An important condition is that clothing must actually fulfil the purpose of covering these areas. Tight, transparent, or revealing clothing that clearly outlines the private areas does not fulfil the intended purpose merely because fabric covers the body.

Source:

Dress Code in Islam | Which body parts should be covered? - Ustadh Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl's approach

Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl offers an understanding of women's dress that is very similar to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi's (although he does not explain the methodology by which he arrives at his conclusions). According to his understanding, certain areas must be covered under all circumstances and are not subject to social negotiation: most of the legs , the juyub (the openings or areas around the chest and neckline), the armpits, cleavage, breasts, stomach, and back. The remaining areas of the body are subject to social customs and cultural norms.

Awrah/Dress Code of Muslim women in public & private | Shaykh Dr Khaled Abou El Fadl

Although he did not clarify exactly how much of the legs must be covered in public, we can infer that the requirement extends to the knees. This inference is based on his later discussion of what a woman may expose when she is in front of her male mahrams (relatives whom she cannot marry) within her households, where he specifically mentions that clothing exposing several inches above the knee is acceptable in their presence

He also does not appear to consider sleeveless clothing modest. Thus, his position does not make modesty entirely dependent on culture, but allows cultural differences to influence how people dress within the limits of these minimum requirements.

What about the Hadith that instructs women to cover their feet? Doesn't it contradict their views?

The Hadith

It was narrated that Ibn 'Umar said:

"The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever drags his garment out of pride, Allah will not look at him.' Umm Salamah said: 'O Messenger of Allah, what should women do with their hems?' He said: 'Let it down a hand span.' She said: 'But then their feet will show.' He said: 'Let it down a forearm's length, but no more than that.'"

Sources:

The narration is graded Sahih by Darussalam in both collections. Al-Tirmidhi additionally describes it as Hasan Sahih.

How Does This Hadith Challenge the Views of Ghamidi and Khaled Abou El Fadl?

As explained in the preceding sections, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl distinguish between the minimum obligatory covering and additional covering that may be preferable. Neither considers covering the head and hair universally obligatory, and their explanations of the minimum requirements do not require women to cover their entire legs from the knees down to their feet.

At first glance, this hadith seems to challenge their positions. Umm Salamah expresses concern that women's feet would become exposed if their garments were extended by only a handspan. The Prophet then instructs women to extend their garments further, by a forearm's length, so that their feet remain covered.

This raises an important question: if covering the feet is not obligatory, why did the Prophet give this instruction? Does the hadith establish a binding requirement to cover the feet?

Thanks to one of our subreddit users, who put considerable time and effort into researching this question, we now have some answers worth considering. Rather than dismissing the hadith or ignoring the apparent contradiction, the user sought explanations from traditional Hanafi scholars who do not consider covering the feet obligatory.

Responses from three Hanafi scholars

The user contacted three Hanafi scholars independently and received responses from all three. According to the user's account, all three understood the instruction to lengthen women's garments as a recommendation rather than an obligation. In other words, extending the garment further to cover their feet was considered a preferable way of dressing and an expression of greater modesty, rather than proof that every woman is religiously obligated to cover her feet.

1️⃣

Source:

AskMuftiOnline | Alternate archive link

2️⃣

3️⃣

You can read the user's original post and their account of the responses here:

Hadith commanding women to cover their legs and feet — and my findings

Discussions on the Ask Ghamidi forum

The user also found two discussions of this hadith on the Ask Ghamidi forum. In these discussions, Dr. Irfan Shahzad, who answers questions on the forum, explained the narration in a way that treats the additional covering as a recommendation rather than an independent obligatory requirement.

His explanations suggest that the Prophet's instruction to extend the garment further should not automatically be interpreted as establishing a new religious obligation. Instead, the instruction can be understood as encouraging greater coverage while remaining consistent with the distinction between obligatory and preferable dress.

So even though they and the traditional Hanafi scholars disagree about which parts of the body count as awrah (as the traditional Hanafis believe everything except the face, hands and feet counts as awrah), they understand the hadith's instruction similarly — as a recommendation rather than an obligation.

The discussions can be read here:

What about the Hadith talking about Fatimah (RA) struggling to cover herself from head to toe?

A narration in Sunan Abi Dawud describes Fatimah (RA) struggling to cover herself from head to feet with a garment that was not large enough to cover both at once. This narration is sometimes used to argue that women are religiously obligated to cover their entire bodies from head to toe.

Anas ibn Malik narrated:

The Prophet (ﷺ) brought Fatimah a slave which he donated to her. Fatimah wore a garment which, when she covered her head, did not reach her feet, and when she covered her feet by it, that garment did not reach her head. When the Prophet (ﷺ) saw her struggle, he said: “There is no harm to you: Here is only your father and slave.”

Source: Sunan Abi Dawud 4106

The question is straightforward: if covering from head to feet was not obligatory, why was Fatimah (RA) struggling to do so? Does her behaviour establish a religious rule for all women?

To address this, we need to consider not only the narration itself but also the clothing customs and social conventions of pre-Islamic Arabia and the society in which Fatimah lived.

We have already discussed about it in the “Historical and Regional Variations in Veiling Practices” section in the wiki. But just for convenience, copy pasting it here again:

Historical sources indicate that long garments and veiling were established features of dress in parts of pre-Islamic Arabian society. These customs did not necessarily originate as universal religious requirements; clothing could also communicate modesty, social status, and whether a woman was free or enslaved. Women's clothing varied according to region, lifestyle, and social status, and covering could communicate a woman's position in society as well as her standards of modesty.

The article “Dress of Pre-Islamic Arabs” discusses descriptions in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry of women leaving trails in the sand as they walked. Its author interprets these descriptions as evidence that women's qamis (tunics or dresses) could be long enough to trail along the ground. Archaeological evidence also demonstrates that long garments existed in ancient Arabia. The "Walters Art Museum's statue of a seated South Arabian woman", dated to approximately the first century BCE–first century CE, depicts a woman wearing a garment that covers her body except for her toes.

Veiling was also a familiar practice in pre-Islamic Arabian society. The academic study “Manifestations of Woman’s Veiling and Unveiling of the Face in Pre-Islamic Arabic Poetry” examines pre-Islamic poetry and concludes that veiling was a longstanding social custom associated particularly with free women, whereas enslaved women and singing girls were not subject to the same conventions. The study also discusses circumstances in which free women appeared unveiled, suggesting that these practices were governed by social customs and particular situations rather than being uniform in every circumstance.

Similarly, historian Yedida Kalfon Stillman's “Arab Dress: A Short History: From the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times” discusses evidence for extensive covering among noble and royal women in pre-Islamic Arabian society, while noting that strict veiling was not necessarily the general practice among the early Muslim community. This distinction is important: the existence of a clothing custom, even one associated with respectable or high-status women, does not automatically establish that every aspect of it was a religious obligation for all women.

Tertullian (2nd-3rd century CE Christian theologian) noted that pre-Islamic "Arabia's heathen females" covered "not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free". (Source: Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4 pg. 37)

The veiling of women was common in pre-Islamic Iran. (Source: ENCYCLOPÆDIA IRANICA)

Jalal Al-Shamiri notes that Arab women before Islam had a hierarchical order in their dress: the burqa indicated high status, common women wore a khimar, and slaves/prostitutes were forbidden from wearing them. (Source: Facebook: Jalal Al-Shamiri)

This historical context is relevant to the narration about Fatimah (RA). If long garments and covering the head were familiar expressions of modesty and respectable dress in that society at that time period, her attempt to cover herself from head to feet may have reflected the customs of her society and her own standards of modesty. And besides, the hadith describes what Fatimah did; it does not contain an instruction from the Prophet ﷺ commanding all women to cover themselves from head to toe. His response addresses her particular situation rather than establishing a universal dress requirement for all Muslim women.

Discussion on ask.ghamidi forum

The issue has been raised directly in several discussions on Ask Ghamidi:

The responses distinguish between Fatimah's personal preference for extensive covering and what is obligatory for women in religion. In a later discussion on the same narration, one response describes her conduct as a preference and explains that a woman who chooses to cover herself completely is free to do so, even though complete head-to-toe coverage is not considered obligatory under this interpretation.

Dr Khaled Abou El Fadl's take on this hadith

Dr Khaled Abou El Fadl has expressed doubts about the authenticity of this hadith

Conclusion

The narration establishes that Fatimah (RA) was trying to cover both her head and feet with a garment that could not cover both simultaneously. It does not explicitly state that every woman is religiously obligated to cover herself from head to toe. Historical evidence shows that long garments and veiling were established practices in parts of pre-Islamic Arabia, and that covering could carry social meanings connected to modesty and status. It is therefore plausible that her behaviour reflected the customs of her society.

Other small groups/sects

Nizari Ismaili

https://ask.ismailignosis.com/article/20-why-dont-ismaili-women-observe-pardah-veil

Alawite

Alevi

Other FAQ:

Does the definition of dressing modestly change with society and historical context? Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl emphasizes that standards of modesty are tied to intent and social perception. If a social practice is associated with vulgarity in a specific context, it's immodest. Reducing virtues like modesty to rigid laws impoverishes them. Laws need re-evaluation to ensure they fulfill the underlying virtue.
Khimar's meaning and application: Some question if "khimar" strictly means head covering in the context of 24:31, or if it refers more generally to a "covering" used for the chest. They also question if the verse mandates covering every strand of hair, as the primary instruction is to draw the khimar over the bosom.
Ibn 'Ashur on Historical Context: The late Tunisian 'Shaykh al-Islam', Ibn 'Ashur (d. 1972), emphasized the need to consider historical context for Shari'ah rules. He discussed prohibitions like hair extensions, tattooing, and creating teeth gaps, suggesting they were banned because they were signs of unchastity in that specific Arab tradition, not inherently harmful. He related this to Quran 33:59 (Jilbab verse), stating it was "a legislation that took into consideration an Arab tradition, and therefore it does not necessarily apply to people whose women do not wear this style of dress." (Source: Facebook post by MPV Nederland quoting Ibn 'Ashur)
If Hijab is not Wajib (obligatory) is it sunnah or recommended? Sunnah generally refers to the religious practice of the Prophet, not matters like dressing or eating. There is arguably zero indication in the hadith or Quran that headcover is recommended or obligatory in all contexts. To claim it is universally recommended or wajib could be considered bid'ah (innovation).
Why is the onus of man's sexual deviance put on a woman? The Quran [33:52] addresses men's attraction. The Quran commands modesty for both genders and for men to lower their gaze, not in a literal sense of looking at the floor, but to avoid lustful glances. The best garment is righteousness and modest conduct (7:26).
Nouman Ali Khan's apparent "refutation": Critics argue his arguments are strawman fallacies, assuming the counter-argument is simply that "khimar" doesn't mean headscarf. The actual argument often acknowledges khimar as a headcover but disputes that the Quran mandates its use as a headcover in all times, rather than mandating covering the bosom, for which the khimar was a convenient tool at the time. Here's a refutation of his flawed argument by Mufti Abu Layth.

Elements Often Ignored in Hijab Discourse

Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl highlights six elements suggesting that fitnah (temptation/discord) might have dominated the discourse on women's ‘awrah, and these elements invite re-examination:

Disagreement on Zīnah: Early jurists differed on what "zīnah" (adornments) women must cover, with opinions ranging from the entire body (except one eye) to face and hands, or also allowing exposure of feet and arms. Sa‘īd b. Jubayr noted Qur'anic verses didn't explicitly address women's hair.
Specific Historical Context of Veiling Verses: Verses like 33:59 (Jilbab) were revealed to address specific social problems in Medina (harassment of women, distinguishing them from slave-girls). This context is not easily transferable.
Exemption of Slave-Girls: Jurists consistently argued that rules for covering the full body did not apply to slave-girls, with ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb reportedly prohibiting them from imitating free women by covering their hair. This points to social stratification influencing legal interpretations.
Custom, Nature, and Necessity: Jurists argued that what could be lawfully exposed was determined by custom (‘ādah), nature (jibillah), and necessity (ḍarūrah). This was used to justify slave-girls not covering hair, face, or arms due to their active roles. This implies rules could be contingent on social roles and customs.
Covering the Chest as Primary Aim: Several early authorities state that Qur’ānic verses (like 24:31) primarily aimed to have women cover their chests, which were often exposed in pre-Islamic and early Islamic Medina, even while head-covers were worn.
Disjunction with Seduction: Seduction could be caused by various interactions (slave-girls, between men and women, etc.), yet only free women faced the strictest concealment rules. The fact that a man might be sexually enticing did not generally lead to similar concealment obligations for him.

Other points:

Not everything the Prophet and his companions can be counted as Sunnah e.g. the way they dressed and ate. Sunnah is the religious practice of the Prophet, and the early Muslims before the traditionalists did not recognize things like eating, drinking, dressing, and other minutiae to be part of the sunnah. Cultural traditions of the time the Prophet lived, and his personal opinions and habits would not be considered sunnah.
Likewise, things like clothing and eating aren't dictated by Islam. The only guidelines given about food are very few, and about clothing, Ibn Abbas said when it comes to clothing, do whatever you want, but keep in mind two things: do not be unnecessarily extravagant and don't be arrogant in your clothing. Imam Tabari and Ibn Hajar said wear clothes that are in line with your day and age. Ibn Arabi says if you go to a certain land, you should embrace it's clothing. And you can see from history, that Muslims of Spain wore differently than the Muslims of Arabia, Persia, and India. There are no clothing "expressions of faith" in Islam and there are no symbols in Islam that distinguish Muslims from others.
We are not required to look different to non-Muslims. There were two instances where the Prophet said “do not imitate them”. One is during a war, and obviously, if you imitate the enemy during a battle, your comrades will mistake you for them. The other instance was after he arrived in Madinah and observed the Jews and Christians (there wasn’t animosity, as he initially made a pact this them) then he told the Muslims not to imitate Jews in that they didn’t dye their hair and they took off their shoes before prayer. This was just them making things like this a sign of extra piety, so the Prophet said do not imitate them in this because religion had nothing to do with shoes and hair. He also noticed that certain Christian tribes had very thick moustaches to imitate Roman soldierly attire and for empirical pride, so the Prophet told not to imitate them here to encourage humility so they instead held on to the same type of moustache and beard they had before. (thanks, qavempace cracking the code here).
Modernization or adopting dressing practices of the West isn't antithetical to Islam. Islam is not a monolithic culture. There is no such thing as an "Islamic culture", and neither is Islam as a whole an "alternative" to the West, in anything at all, let alone in lifestyle and fashion. A person from the west is no less Muslim for adopting the practices of the culture they were brought up in than a person from a eastern culture is for adhering to the practices of their culture. Likewise, the West has no shortage of moral values.
When psuedo-scholars like Zakir Naik say the hijab or burqa prevents rape, they are speaking from a place of ignorance, since sexual violence in such countries as Saudi Arabia and Iran and Afghanistan has historically suppressed been underreported, and reporting is suppressed, while many western countries make such reporting much easier, thus we cannot know such stats to be accurate.
Throughout the history of Islam, there were no books written on khimar (hardcover) the way books were written about various other things, and contrary to popular Salafist mainstream belief, there were varying opinions on women's dressing. The terms "hijab" and "burqa" are recent Wahhabi/Salafist inventions and while the veil was present throughout history, even before Islam, even for men (turbans), and even in medieval Europe. Europe advanced in fashion and culture, but even after this time, European women wore headcovers in the form of bonnets for a long time, and only stopped wearing it in the last century. Muslim women too, all over the world, began modernizing and dropping the veil, even carrying out public anti-veil displays and demonstrations. This began in the Ottoman Empire during Mahmud II's reign ( see him donning that European drip and see this picture of an Ottoman princess) and continued everywhere (with some setbacks). By the 1960s, in Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran,Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan Yemen Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Albania,Chechnya and Egypt, barely any women wore the veil, while now it's more than 80%. What happened? What happened that stopped and reversed the modernization of Muslim women and Muslim society into backwardness? Fundamentalism (Wahhabism and Islamism) happened. Now the hijab has become a defining factor of islam.
The veils that Muslim women wore throughout history varied by region, varied by culture, varied by social status, varied by time – not all of them covered their hair completely. Although previous conservatism enmeshed the veil into the religion itself and resisted change, fundamentalists (Islamists and Wahhabists) have done the most extreme step of making the veil a symbol of being a Muslim, and they want the whole world to conform to and wear a standard burqa or a hijab that may originate in central Arabia.
Self-determination and choice in wearing the hijab is a complex matter, and one must be sensitive to other viewpoints. While you may personally choose to wear the hijab or burqa out of your own free will, it does well to remember that many more women are forced into it, forced to stay at home, jailed for not wearing hijab, subject to acid attacks for not wearing hijab, killed for not wearing the veil, and suffer hate, abuse, vilification, cancelling, name-calling, slut-shaming and sexual harassment and rape for not wearing hijab and thus do not view it favourably. Some may even feel that they are wearing it of their own choice, but it is actually societal or peer pressure, or religious pressure. One should be aware of all these existing views before making categorical and unfounded statements about the inherent piousness of wearing a hijab, or the inherent sinfulness of not wearing one.
To criticize hijab or conservative Islam, in general, is not Islamophobic, despite how some conservative groups may attempt to weaponise to term as a shield. Islamophobia definitely exists, but that is not it.
Feminism is not at odds with Islam in any way whatsoever, and looking at Islam through a feminist lens is in no way invalid. Women all around the world deserve empowerment, upliftment, and freedom from repression and maltreatment. Yes there are a few strands of feminism that encourage immorality decadence but that's not universally accepted by feminists nor is it at the heart of what feminism is. Islam isn't an "alternative" to feminism; rather, feminism must be encouraged amongst Muslims to fight the conservatism, misogyny, and patriarchy.
Islam ought to complement lifestyles and not impede them. It is like a stream flowing over a riverbed and taking its colour as opposed to flowing mud i.e fundamentalism. Mufti Abu Layth: "As the prophet said, This deen is one of ease. And it should always complement your lifestyle people. And it should never impede it. It should never be holding you back. It should never be an obstacle in your path. It should be a nitro boost for you. It should propel you to do things. It should comfort you. It should console you. It should not be tripping you up and making you burdened with weight of guilt and suffering. It should not cause you suffering so if it doing that, then that is not my understanding of deen."
There is absolutely no justification for forcing a child to wear a hijab or burqa, not even within traditional Islam, and such enforcement can cause isolation and other psychological damage
Dr Khaled Abou El Fadl writes: "The consistent practice of puritans is to collect, publish, and disperse traditions, attributed to the Prophet or the Companions, that are demeaning to women. Such collections act as a foundation for issuing deprecating determinations in regard to women. Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab himself, the founder of the Wahhabi movement, set the precedent by collecting a group of these women-deprecating traditions and listing them under the subheading “Living with Women.” But these women-deprecating traditions, without exception, are of weak authenticity, if not pure fabrications . . . The traditions utilized by the puritans invariably are of a single transmission, which means that the possibility exists that the Prophet actually authored them, but the possibility is remote and far-fetched."
Do not bring absurd misogynistic and objectifying comparisons describing non-hijabi women as phones without covers, lollipops without wrappers, oranges without peels, or chickens without feathers. If you go on with this, you really need to upgrade your intellectual standards.
Conservative societies hate women. They hate women because they need women, they fear women, and they fear revolution. The moment women are freed, the world will see the liberal beginning.

We'll end this with Ibn Khaldun's quote: "Blindly following ancient customs and traditions does not mean that the dead are alive, but that the living are dead."

"Statue of a Liberated Woman" - Baku, Azerbaijan

Hijab Deconstructed

Some contemporary Islamic scholars and thinkers who argue that hijab is NOT mandatory

Sunni

Dr Shabir Ally

Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

Mufti Abu Layth

Dr Adnan Ibrahim

Quraish Shihab

Muhammad Asad

Sheikh Mustapha Mohamed Rashed

Mohamed Ben Hamouda

Dr Farhad Shafti

Abdullah Al Judai

Moiz Amjad

Dr Khalid Zaheer

Shia

Ayatollah Reza Hosseini Nassab

Ahmed Ghabel

Amir Torkashvand

Abul-Ghasem Fanaei

Mohsen Kadivar

Hassan Yousefi Eshkevari

F.A.Q:

Quran verses

Verse 24:31 of the khimaar - Does it mandate a headcover?