Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Looking, touching and khalwa > A woman looking at another woman
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
This second part of the chapter on the rules of looking and touching brings together thirteen sheets of the fiqh encyclopedia. It covers a woman looking at another woman, looking through a mirror or water, the awrah of a slave woman, the slave looking at his mistress, looking between spouses, kissing between spouses, intercourse in the anus, uncovering one's awrah in solitude, and the rules of seclusion (khalwa) with a non-mahram woman. School positions are reported with their evidences, hadiths and classical references.
The jurists agree that it is forbidden for a woman to look at the awrah of another woman without necessity, based on what Muslim reported from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him: the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said:
"Let no man look at the awrah of a man, nor a woman at the awrah of a woman, and let no man lie with a man under one garment, nor a woman with a woman under one garment."Narrated by Muslim (338)
Al-Nawawi said that this hadith contains the prohibition of a woman looking at the awrah of a woman, and that there is no disagreement on it (Sharh Sahih Muslim 4/30). As for the limit of the awrah of a woman before another woman, it is, for the majority of jurists, what lies between the navel and the knee: this is the position of the Hanafis in the sound view, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis. Whatever a man may look at of another man, a woman may look at of another woman, and whatever is not lawful for the one is not lawful for the other.
A woman may therefore look at all the body of another woman except what lies between the navel and the knee, for there is in her looking no fear of desire or of falling into fitna, as with a man looking at a man; and if she fears that, she avoids it as the man does. She may only look between the navel and the knee in case of necessity: a midwife may for example look at the private part during childbirth, and there is no harm in examining it to establish the virginity of a wife afflicted with obstruction ('innin) or of a slave girl bought on condition of virginity, in case of dispute.
It follows that they must not be prevented from entering public baths, contrary to what some people say: the well-known custom in all lands of building baths for women and letting them enter them proves this. Women's need to enter baths exceeds men's, for the aim is adornment, and the woman needs it more than the man; a man can wash in rivers and pools, while a woman cannot.
According to Imam Abu Hanifa, which is an anomalous (shadhdh) view even among the Shafi'is, a woman's looking at another woman is like a man's looking at his mahrams, unlike her looking at a man: since men need to expose themselves more in their work, she may not look at her back or her belly. The first view is the sounder one (al-Mabsut 10/146, 30/108, Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 5/124, al-Muhit al-Burhani 5/169, al-Hidaya 4/85, al-'Inaya 14/240, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 6/18, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 8/219, al-Jawhara al-Nayra 6/360, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/246, al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/344, al-Bayan 9/130, Rawdat al-Talibin 4/666, al-Najm al-Wahhaj 7/28, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/220, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 8/502, al-Dibaj 3/173, al-Mughni 7/80, al-Kafi 3/8, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/14, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 5/106, Manar al-Sabil 2/538). The ruling of a woman looking at a woman for a reason, and of a man looking at a woman for a reason, was detailed earlier.
The jurists differed over the awrah of a Muslim woman before a disbelieving woman: may a Muslim woman let a non-believing woman, whether from the People of the Book (kitabiyya) or otherwise, look at her as a Muslim woman would, beyond what lies between the navel and the knee, or may she not uncover before her? The Hanafis in the soundest view, the Malikis in the adopted view, the Shafi'is in the soundest view and the Hanbalis in one narration hold that the awrah of a Muslim woman before a disbelieving woman is like her awrah before a stranger man: she may show her only her face and her palms, according to the sound view among them.
The evidence that showing anything else is not permitted is Allah's saying:
"And let them not display their adornment except to 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 women"
Surah An-Nur, 31
That is, the Muslim women; and the disbelieving woman is not among their women: if the disbelieving woman's looking were permitted, the specification would have no purpose. It is also authentically reported that Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, prevented dhimmi women from entering baths with Muslim women. There is also the fact that she may describe the Muslim woman to her disbelieving husband: the prohibition therefore proceeds from an incidental factor, not from the notion of awrah, unless the disbelieving woman is her slave, in which case her awrah before her is that of a man before his like, that is, between the navel and the knee.
On the opposite side, the Hanafis (against their soundest view), the Malikis in one opinion, the Shafi'is (against their soundest view, which al-Ghazali preferred) and the Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that there is no difference between a Muslim woman and a disbelieving one: the Muslim woman may show the disbelieving woman all her body except what lies between the navel and the knee. There is no more difference between two Muslim women and a Muslim woman with a dhimmi woman than between two Muslim men and a Muslim man with a dhimmi man as regards looking.
Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: some people hold that she does not lower her veil before the Jewish and Christian woman; as for me, I hold that she neither looks at the private part nor attends her childbirth. And the disbelieving women, among the Jewish women and others, used to enter upon the wives of the Prophet, peace be upon him, without their veiling and without the hijab being enjoined on them. From Aisha, wife of the Prophet, peace be upon him:
"A Jewish woman came to ask her and said to her: may Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave. Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, then asked the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him..." (the rest of the hadith)Narrated by Bukhari (1002) and Muslim (903)
The Prophet, peace be upon him, did not rebuke her for it. Asma, may Allah be pleased with her, said:
"My mother came to me while she was a polytheist, in the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. I consulted the Messenger of Allah and said: my mother has come willingly; shall I keep ties with her? He replied: yes, keep ties with your mother."Narrated by Bukhari (2477) and Muslim (1003)
For the veil between men and women serves a purpose that does not exist between the Muslim woman and the dhimmi woman: the veil must therefore not be established between them, as between a Muslim man and a dhimmi man; and the hijab is only obliged by a text or an analogy, and neither of the two is found here. As for Allah's saying "or their women", it can mean women in general (al-'Inaya 14/250, al-Durr al-Mukhtar with Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/371 and 6/382, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/246, al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/344, Hashiyat al-'Adawi 1/215, Hashiyat al-Sawi on al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/482, Rawdat al-Talibin 4/666, al-Najm al-Wahhaj 7/29, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/222, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 8/502, al-Dibaj 3/173, al-Mughni 7/80, al-Kafi 3/8, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/14, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 5/106, Manar al-Sabil 2/538).
Does a man's looking at a stranger woman in a mirror or in water take the ruling of looking at her directly, or not? Imam Ibn Abidin, may Allah have mercy on him, said: I have seen nothing on the case of one who looks at the stranger woman in a mirror or in water; and they explicitly stated that affinity (musahara) is not established by seeing a private part in a mirror or in water, for what is perceived is the likeness of the thing, not the thing itself.
It is otherwise with looking through glass or water in which she is: sight passes through glass and water and sees what they contain. The conclusion is that looking at the stranger woman in a mirror or in water is not forbidden, except that a distinction must be made: the prohibition of establishing affinity through looking has stricter conditions because its basis is permissibility, unlike looking, which is only forbidden for fear of fitna and desire, and that fear is truly present here. I have read in the fatawa of Ibn Hajar of the Shafi'is that he mentions their disagreement and prefers the prohibition, in a manner close to what we have said (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/372).
Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said in his commentary on al-Nawawi's words in the Minhaj ("it is forbidden for a mature male to look at the awrah of a free woman"): the likeness (the image) is excluded, so that looking at an image, as in a mirror, is not forbidden, as more than one scholar has ruled. Their saying supports it, namely that if divorce were made conditional on seeing her, he would not be bound by seeing her image in a mirror, for he did not see her; and the place of the prohibition, as is apparent, is where one fears neither fitna nor desire. The voice, among which are the ululations, is not part of the awrah: hearing it is therefore not forbidden unless fitna is feared from it, or if one takes pleasure in it, as al-Zarkashi discussed; the same applies to the effeminate (amrad) (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 8/486, 487). The Shafi'i al-Ramli stated the same in his commentary on the Minhaj (Nihayat al-Muhtaj with Hashiyat al-Shabramallisi 6/216, 21).
There is no disagreement among the jurists that what lies between the navel and the knee of a slave woman is awrah. Al-Mirdawi, may Allah have mercy on him, reports that Shaykh Taqi al-Din said: the madhhab does not differ over the fact that what lies between the navel and the knee of a slave woman is awrah; a group of our companions reported that her awrah is only the two passages, like the narration concerning the awrah of a man; and this is an ugly and grave error, contrary to the madhhab in particular and to the Law in general, and Ahmad's words are the farthest from this view. Al-Mirdawi adds: his grandfather and his successor, in Majma' al-Bahrayn, together with Ibn Ubaydan, reported that what lies between the navel and the knee of a slave woman is awrah by consensus (al-Insaf 1/450).
The jurists then differed over the rest of the slave woman's body. The majority of jurists, the Malikis, the Shafi'is in the soundest view and the Hanbalis in the madhhab, hold that the awrah of a slave woman is like the awrah of a man: looking at her without desire is permitted, except between the navel and the knee, based on the Prophet's saying, peace be upon him:
"When one of you marries his slave woman to his slave or his servant, he must not look at anything of her awrah; for what is below the navel down to the knee is awrah."Hasan hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (4113, 4114) and al-Daraqutni (1/230)
Its implication is the permissibility of looking at the rest. The Hanafi madhhab follows the majority, adding her belly and her back, for it is a place of desire resembling the space between the navel and the knee. Her belly and back are counted as awrah because they adjoin the private part: proof of this is that in li'an, if a man likens his wife to the back or the belly of his female mahrams, it is as if he likened her to her private part. The back is what faces the belly, from the bottom of the chest to the navel. The rest of her body is not awrah, for she differs from the free woman in that she is property that is bought and sold, and thus differs from her in covering (al-Hidaya 4/86, 78, al-'Inaya 14/246, Majma' al-Anhar 1/122, al-Jawhara al-Nayra 1/315, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 8/421, al-Ifsah 1/101).
The Shafi'is against the soundest view, and the Hanbalis in a narration preferred by a group of them, hold that the slave woman is awrah except for what appears of her in her work and becomes uncovered in her service: the head, the neck and the forearm are not awrah according to the Shafi'is; or what usually appears of her, the face, the head, the hands and the shins, according to Ibn Qudama and other Hanbalis. Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, struck a slave woman of the family of Anas whom he saw veiled and said: "Uncover your head and do not resemble the free women." This proves that the practice was well known among the Companions, to the point that Umar rejected its contravention. Abu Qilaba said: Umar did not leave, during his caliphate, a slave woman veiling herself, and said: "The veil is for the free women." If looking at her had been forbidden, he would not have prevented her from covering; he would have commanded it.
And from Anas, may Allah be pleased with him:
"The Prophet, peace be upon him, stayed three nights between Khaybar and Medina, consummating his marriage with Safiyya bint Huyayy. I invited the Muslims to his wedding feast, in which there was neither bread nor meat; he ordered leather mats spread, on which dates, fresh cheese and clarified butter were thrown, and that was his feast. The Muslims said: is she one of the Mothers of the Believers or one of those his right hand possesses? They said: if he veils her, she is one of the Mothers of the Believers; if he does not veil her, she is one of his slave women. When he set out, he made a place for her behind him and stretched a veil between her and the people."Narrated by Bukhari (4864) and Muslim (1365)
This proves that the absence of veiling of slave women was widespread and well known among them, and that the veiling of others was a known thing. Ibn Qudama said: if the slave woman is beautiful and fitna is feared through her, looking at her becomes forbidden, like looking at the boy from whose temptation one fears. Ahmad said of the beautiful slave woman: she must wear the niqab; the owned slave must not be looked at: how many a look has cast troubles into the heart of the one who cast it (al-Mughni 7/79, al-Majmu' 3/171).
A Shafi'i opinion, preferred by al-'Imrani, al-Nawawi, al-Ghazali, al-Jurjani, the qadi Abu al-Tayyib, Ibn Abi Asrun and others, as well as by some Hanbalis, holds that the awrah of the slave woman is that of the free woman: he may only see her face and palms, by Allah's saying "and let them not display their adornment except what appears of it" (Surah An-Nur, 31) and "Tell the believing men to lower their gaze" (Surah An-Nur, 30). A slave woman may be more beautiful than a free woman; the cause of prohibiting looking is the fear of fitna, and the feared fitna applies equally to the free woman and the slave woman, freedom being only a legal status that does not act upon the natural disposition. It is said in al-Rawda: she is like the free woman, and this is a strange view hardly found with anyone but al-Ghazali. Al-Nawawi answers: the author of al-Bayan and others explicitly held that the slave woman is like the free woman, and this is the import of many statements; it is the stronger by evidence. And in the Minhaj: the soundest view according to the verifiers is that the slave woman is like the free woman (Rawdat al-Talibin 4/665, al-Najm al-Wahhaj 7/28, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/221, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 8/501, al-Mughni 7/79, al-Mubdi' 1/362, al-Insaf 1/450).
Imam Ibn al-Qayyim devoted a section to the difference between looking at the free woman and the slave woman: to hold forbidden the look at the deformed old free woman while permitting it at the beautiful, capable slave woman is a lie against the Lawgiver; Allah only said "Tell the believing men to lower their gaze", and Allah and His Messenger did not grant the lustful license to look at beautiful, capable slave women. If fitna is feared through looking at a slave woman, it is forbidden to him beyond any doubt; the doubt arose from the fact that the Lawgiver prescribed for free women to cover their faces before strangers without imposing it on slave women. But this concerns slave women taken for service and debasement; as for slave women kept for intimacy whom custom protects and veils, where would Allah and His Messenger have permitted them to uncover their faces in the markets, the roads and the gatherings of people?
This error was reinforced by the words of some jurists: the free woman is entirely awrah except her face and her palms; the awrah of the slave woman is what does not usually appear, like the belly, the back and the shin; some concluded from this that what usually appears has the ruling of the face of a man. But that applies to prayer, not to looking: awrah is twofold, an awrah of looking and an awrah of prayer. The free woman prays with her face and palms uncovered, but may not go out thus to the markets and the gatherings of people (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 2/80).
The jurists differed over the slave of a free woman as to what he may look at of her. The Hanafis and a Shafi'i opinion hold that he is like the stranger man with her: he may only see her face and her palms, for he is a male with neither a mahram bond nor a marriage bond, and desire is truly present, since marriage with her is possible in principle.
It is reported from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and Sa'id ibn Jubayr, may Allah have mercy on them: "Let Surah al-Nur not deceive you: among females it is below the males", meaning Allah's saying "or what their right hands possess". Al-Sarakhsi said: this is a place of difficulty, for the condition of the slave woman draws near to that of the man, to the point that she travels without a mahram; hence the doubt as to whether uncovering before her slave is permitted to her. This doubt was removed by Allah's saying "or their women", whose general wording covers free women to the exclusion of slave women: there is between them neither marriage nor mahram bond, and the permission to look at the places of hidden adornment is built upon this cause.
The prohibition of marriage between them is incidental, resting on an honour that expires, so that the slave woman is to him like the wife of another or the woman in her waiting period. The obligation of covering and the prohibition of seclusion with a man aim at the fear of fitna, which is present here; it is only removed by the mahram bond, for the permanent prohibition diminishes desire, whereas ownership does not diminish desire but leads to the lifting of shame. The meaning of temptation is nevertheless not realized, for slaves are taken for service outside the house, not inside it, according to the saying: "Whoever takes a slave for service inside his house is a shameless man (kashhan)" (al-Mabsut 10/157, 158, al-Hidaya 4/87, al-Jawhara al-Nayra 6/364).
The Malikis permit the slave to see the hair of his mistress, for the need is realized since he enters upon her without permission, and based on what was reported from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both: "There is no harm in the slave looking at the hair of his mistress." Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr said: Malik went in this direction and permitted the slave's looking at the hair of his mistress; something similar is reported from one of the Mothers of the Believers, and a group held it (al-Tamhid 12/236).
Imam al-'Imrani raised the question: when a woman owns a slave, does he become for her like a mahram as regards looking and seclusion? Two views. The first: he becomes a mahram to her; it is said in al-Muhadhdhab that this is the explicit text, by Allah's saying "or what their right hands possess" (Surah An-Nur, 31), which counted him among the mahrams. Umm Salama reported that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said:
"When one of you has a slave contracted for manumission (mukatib) with a remaining payment, let her veil herself from him."Weak hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (3928), at-Tirmidhi (1261) and Ibn Majah (2520)
Otherwise veiling would not have been enjoined on them when it was not obligatory upon them before. It is also reported that the Prophet, peace be upon him, gave Fatima, may Allah be pleased with her, a slave; he intended to enter upon her while with her were Ali and the slave and she was wearing a single garment (fadul); she wished to cover with it her head and her feet but could not, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, said:
"No harm upon you: he is only your father, your husband and your servant."Authentic hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (4106)
For ownership is a cause of prohibiting marriage between them: he must therefore be to her a mahram like lineage and suckling. The second view: he is not a mahram to her. Shaykh Abu Hamid said this is the sound position among our companions, for prohibition is only established between two persons between whom no desire was created, like the brother and the sister; whereas the slave and his mistress are two persons between whom desire exists: he is therefore like a stranger. As for the verse, the exegetes say it means slave women, not male slaves; as for the hadith, the boy may have been small (al-Bayan 9/130, 131, al-Muhadhdhab 2/34, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/219).
The Hanbalis: Ibn Qudama said that the slave of a woman is not a mahram to her, for she is never permanently forbidden to him; but he is permitted to look at what usually appears of her, by Allah's saying "what their right hands possess". Umm Salama reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "When one of you has a mukatib who has paid what he owed, let her veil herself from him"; at-Tirmidhi reported it and said it is a hasan sahih hadith, and it indicates that she does not veil herself from him before that; the need calls for it, for she needs his service, so that he resembles a mahram (al-Kafi 3/6). It is said in al-Mughni: the slave of a woman may look at her face and her palms, by Allah's saying "or what their right hands possess" (Surah Al-Mu'minun, 6).
The same hadith of Umm Salama is graded weak in the note (narrated by Abu Dawud 3928, at-Tirmidhi 1261 and Ibn Majah 2520), while at-Tirmidhi declares it hasan and sahih. Abu Qilaba said: "The wives of the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not veil themselves from a mukatib as long as a dinar remained upon him to pay", reported by Sa'id in his Sunan. And from Anas: "The Prophet, peace be upon him, came to Fatima with a slave he had given her; Fatima wore a garment with which, if she veiled her head, it did not reach her feet, and if she covered her feet, it did not reach her head. When the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, saw that, he said: no harm upon you, he is only your father and your boy", an authentic hadith narrated by Abu Dawud (4106).
Abu Abdillah (Ahmad) disliked the slave's looking at the hair of his mistress, as did Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Tawus, Mujahid and al-Hasan; Ibn Abbas permitted it to him, by the two verses and the two hadiths mentioned and by Allah's saying "Let those whom your right hands possess and those among you who have not reached puberty ask permission at three times... No sin upon you nor upon them" (Surah An-Nur, 58); and because guarding against it at all times is difficult: it was therefore permitted to him like the mahrams. The companions of al-Shafi'i say he is a mahram, with the ruling of the blood mahrams, according to one of the two views.
For us (the Hanbalis): Ibn Umar reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "The travel of a woman with her slave is ruin (day'a)", a weak hadith narrated by al-Bazzar (5993), who said: this hadith is reported from the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, only through this single chain, and no one is known to have narrated from Bazi' other than Isma'il ibn Uyyash. For she is never permanently forbidden to him while enjoying her is not permitted to him: he is therefore not a mahram like the husband of her sister. He is not trustworthy towards her either, for there is not between them the repulsion of the mahram bond, ownership not implying that natural repulsion, as shown by the master with his slave woman. Only what need calls for is permitted to him of looking, like the suitor and the buyer; some of our companions likened him to a stranger, but the sound position is ours, if Allah wills (al-Mughni 7/76).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: Allah's saying "or their women, or what their right hands possess" indicates that she may show her hidden adornment to her slave; two views: the first, that it means slave women and scriptural slave women, as Ibn al-Musayyib said, and this is what Ahmad and others preferred; the second, that it means the male slave, as Ibn Abbas said, and this is the other narration reported from Ahmad. This entails the permissibility of the slave's looking at his mistress, and hadiths support it, on account of need: she needs to speak with her slave more than seeing the suitor, the dealer or the interlocutor; if their looking is permitted, the slave's is more fitting.
This does not entail that he is a mahram who travels with her: those permitted to look are not mahrams who travel with her. Not everyone permitted to look is therefore permitted to travel with her or to be in seclusion with her; the slave looks at his mistress out of need, though he has with her neither seclusion nor travel (Majmu' al-Fatawa 22/111).
The people of knowledge agree that each of the two spouses may look at all the awrah of the other as long as the marriage subsists, except the private part, over which they differed into three views. First view: each of the two may look at the private part of the other without dislike, for intercourse and enjoyment are permitted, which is above looking; the permissibility of looking is therefore more fitting. This is the view of the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis in the madhhab. Al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab said: most of the scholars hold that it is not forbidden (Fath al-Bari 1/337); the proof of it is the well-known reports from Aisha, Umm Salama and Maymuna, Mothers of the Believers, may Allah be pleased with them: they used to bathe with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, from a single vessel. In Maymuna's report he had no waist-wrapper, for it states that he "put his hand into the vessel then poured over his private part and washed it with his left hand".
Allah said:
"...and who guard their private parts, (5) except with their wives or those their right hands possess, for they are not to be blamed (6)"
Surah Al-Mu'minun, 5-6
Allah commanded guarding the private part except with the wife and the slave possessed: there is therefore no blame in it, and this rule extends in general to seeing, touching and mixing. Utba ibn Abi Hakim asked Sulayman ibn Musa about the man who looks at his wife's private part; he answered: I asked Ata', who said: I asked Aisha, who said:
"I used to bathe, I and my beloved, peace be upon him, from a single vessel in which our hands took turns", pointing to a vessel in the house of about six mudds in size.Narrated by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (5577)
The Hanafis say: the man looks at the private part of his slave woman and of his wife, with desire or without desire, since intercourse and enjoyment are permitted, which is above looking; if looking were not permitted, neither of the two would have stripped before the other; and since what is above looking, touching and covering, is permitted, looking is more fitting. Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, said: "I used to bathe, I and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, from a single vessel." Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, used to say: "It is better that the man look at his wife's private part at the time of intercourse, so as to attain the meaning of pleasure more completely."
Abu Yusuf said in al-Amali: I asked Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, about the man who touches his wife's private part or is touched by her so as to arouse him: do you see any harm in that? He answered: I hope the reward will be great. It remains that it is better that neither of the two look at the awrah of the other, based on the Prophet's saying, peace be upon him: "When one of you comes to his wife, let him cover himself and not strip as two donkeys strip", a weak hadith narrated by Ibn Majah (1920), and because it causes forgetfulness. There is no harm in the man touching his wife's private part and her touching his to arouse him (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 2/331, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 6/18, 19, al-Muhit al-Burhani 5/171, al-'Inaya 14/241, al-Jawhara al-Nayra 6/360, 361, Majma' al-Anhar 4/201, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/366, 367, Hashiyat al-Tahtawi on Maraqi al-Falah 1/36).
The Malikis say: in a valid marriage permitting intercourse, each of the two spouses may look at all the body of the other, down to the private part, from the front or from behind, whether during intercourse or otherwise. What has been reported to the effect that looking at her private part causes blindness is a rejected (munkar) report with no basis (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 2/482, 483, Mawahib al-Jalil 5/27, 28, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 3/166, al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 3/4, 5, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 2/533, Hashiyat al-Sawi on al-Sharh al-Saghir 4/410).
Abu al-Walid Ibn Rushd al-Qurtubi said: Asbagh reported that Ibn al-Qasim was asked whether a man may speak to his wife during intercourse; he said: yes, and he may resume talking with her; there is no harm in that, by way of permission. Ibn al-Qasim reported from al-Darawardi, from the one who transmitted to him, that al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Siddiq was asked about the option (takhyir) at that moment; he answered: "When you are alone, do as you wish." Asbagh asked: may the man look at his wife's private part during intercourse? He said: yes, there is no harm in it. He was told: some people mention a dislike of it; he answered: whoever dislikes it dislikes it by custom, not by knowledge; there is no harm in it and it is not disliked.
Muhammad ibn Rushd said: in the original transmission heard, to the question about the man's looking at his wife's private part during intercourse, the answer was: yes, "and he licks it with his tongue"; al-Utbi dropped this wording, finding it too ugly. In the book of Ibn al-Mawwaz: "and he licks it with his tongue", which is uglier still. The scholars nevertheless permit citing such statements for the sake of explanation, so that nothing that is not unlawful be forbidden: many of the common people believe that a man may never look at his wife's private part, and some asked me about it, astonished that it should be permitted. Likewise, the man speaking to his wife during intercourse poses no problem, and no dislike attaches to it (al-Bayan wa-l-Tahsil 5/79).
The Hanbalis say in the madhhab: each of the two spouses is permitted to look at and touch all the body of the other, including the private part, without dislike, based on what Bahz ibn Hakim reported from his father, from his grandfather: I said: O Messenger of Allah, our awrah: what may we show and what must we guard? He said:
"Guard your awrah, except before your wife or the one your right hand possesses."Hasan hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (4017), at-Tirmidhi (2769), Ibn Majah (1920) and an-Nasa'i in al-Kubra (8972)
For enjoyment of the private part is lawful to him: looking at it and touching it are therefore permitted like the rest of the body. The qadi said: kissing the woman's private part before intercourse is permitted, and it is disliked after it; he reported it from Ata' (al-Mughni 7/77, al-Kafi 3/8, al-Mubdi' 7/12, al-Insaf 8/32, 33, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/16).
Second view: the looking of each spouse at the private part of the other, without need, is disliked without being unlawful; this is the sound view among the Shafi'is and a Hanbali narration chosen by Ibn Qudama, may Allah have mercy on him, based on Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her: "I never looked at the private part of the Prophet, peace be upon him", a weak hadith narrated by Ibn Majah (662, 1922) and Ahmad (24389, 25609). And from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, raised to the Prophet, peace be upon him:
"When one of you has intercourse with his wife or his slave girl, let him not look at her private part: that causes blindness."Fabricated hadith: reported by Ibn Hibban in al-Majruhin (1/202) and mentioned by him in al-Mawdu'at (2/175, 176), where he declares it fabricated
It is cited in support of this view in al-Muhadhdhab (2/35), al-Bayan (9/131, 132), Rawdat al-Talibin (4/668), al-Najm al-Wahhaj (7/35), Mughni al-Muhtaj (4/226), al-Mughni (7/77), al-Kafi (3/8) and al-Insaf (8/32, 33). Third view: looking at the private part of the spouse is forbidden for each of the two; it is a Shafi'i view.
Al-Nawawi said: as for the spouses, each of the two has the right to look at all the awrah of the other, except the private part itself, over which our companions have three views: the soundest is that looking at the private part of one's spouse without need is disliked without being unlawful; the second is that it is forbidden to both; the third is that it is forbidden for the man and disliked for the woman, and looking at the inside of the private part is more strongly disliked and forbidden (Sharh Sahih Muslim 4/30, Rawdat al-Talibin 4/668).
The basis in the mutual enjoyment of the spouses is permissibility, except what a text forbids, such as intercourse during menses or lochia, in the anus, or with a menstruating or fasting woman; everything else rests on permissibility according to the majority of the people of knowledge. They explicitly permitted the man to kiss his wife's private part, and each of the two spouses to touch the private part of the other, caress it and kiss it: all of that involves no hardship and no forbidding text, and falls under the evidences of the permissibility of mutual enjoyment.
"Your wives are a tilth for you; so come to your tilth as you wish."
Surah Al-Baqara, 223
And since penetration in the private part, the highest form of enjoyment, is permitted, what is below it is more fitting for permissibility. The basis is that each of the two spouses may enjoy all the body of the other without exception, except the anus, the menses and the lochia: everything else remains on the basis of permissibility.
Abu Yusuf, may Allah have mercy on him, said: I asked Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, about the man who touches his wife's private part or is touched by her so as to arouse him: do you see any harm in that? He answered: no; I hope the reward will be great (al-Muhit al-Burhani 5/171, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 6/19, al-'Inaya 14/241, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/368). Muhammad ibn Rushd, may Allah have mercy on him, reported the account already cited: to the question about the man's looking at his wife's private part during intercourse, the answer was yes, "and he licks it with his tongue"; al-Utbi dropped the wording as too ugly, and the book of Ibn al-Mawwaz mentions it as uglier still. The scholars permit citing such statements for the sake of explanation, so that what is not unlawful not be forbidden, many of the common people believing the contrary (al-Bayan wa-l-Tahsil 5/79).
Al-Hattab, may Allah have mercy on him, said: al-Qabbab, in the chapter on women looking at men, said: the woman's looking at her husband or her master is the same as their looking at her in all that preceded; the only difference is her looking at his private part: no prohibition reached us concerning it as for the man's looking at hers. Benefit: Asbagh said that whoever dislikes looking at the private part dislikes it by custom, not by knowledge, and that there is no harm in it and it is not disliked. Al-Qabbab said in the chapter on men looking at women: when the woman is lawful to the man as regards intercourse, only his looking at her private part remains debated, a place of disagreement that the Malikis permitted.
It is reported from Malik that he said there is no harm in looking at the private part during intercourse, and one narration adds: "and he licks it with his tongue", which is an exaggeration in permissibility that does not correspond to his apparent position (Mawahib al-Jalil 5/27, 28). Imam Ibn al-Arabi al-Maliki said: the people differed over the permissibility of the man's looking at his wife's private part into two views: the first, that it is permitted, since enjoyment is permitted, looking is more fitting; the second, that it is not, based on Aisha's words about her situation with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him: "I never saw that of him, nor he of me." The first is sounder, and is understood as a matter of etiquette; Asbagh, of our scholars, permitted licking it with the tongue (Ahkam al-Qur'an 3/383, Tafsir al-Qurtubi 12/232).
The Shafi'is say: the husband may take every enjoyment from his wife except her anus, including sucking her clitoris or being masturbated by her hand (I'anat al-Talibin 3/616, Fath al-Mu'in 3/340). The Hanbalis say: the wife may touch the husband's private part and kiss it with desire, even while he sleeps. The qadi said: kissing the woman's private part before intercourse is permitted, and disliked after it, for it then becomes impossible; he reported it from Ata' (al-Insaf 8/33, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/16).